Talk:Anti-aircraft warfare

Gap in US Army Equipment?

I belive the statement, "The United States Army has disdained air defense for ground units, counting on achieving air superiority. This has left a gap in American military equipment between the man-portable Stinger and the theater anti-missile system Patriot." should be removed. The existence of the Avenger Missle System, which has been in service since 1989, seems to disprove it.

It would be good to find a source which confirms or denies this statement. The presence of the Avenger alone doesn't really prove anything; it depends on the level of deployment, the presence and nature of AA assets at coy, bn, bde, div levels, doctrine, etc. —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:08 Z

By checking the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE), a US Division has 1 battalion of Air Defense Artillery assigned with between 1 and 3 batteries (companies) using the Avenger (12 Avengers per battery). Heavier divisions also have M6 Linebackers assigned (anti-aircraft versions of the M2 Bradley IFV). Check it out at GlobalSecurity.org. I think that disproves the statement in question. Movementarian 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections I am going to replace the disdain statement with something about the US Army Air Defense Artillery Regts. Movementarian 18:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The replacement to the above statement creates a misleading sense that the US Army has a comprehensive air defence system. The statement above is actually very close to being accurate (much closer than its replacement). Avenger and Linebacker are both glorified FIM-92 carriers+rangefinder. I'm not sure "disdain" is appropriate (and the XXI division has a MUCH strengthened SHORAD component in comparison to the older organization), but they definitely don't pay as much attention to it as some other Armies. So I replaced everything by listing out the main tiers and letting the reader decide the difference. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Structuring needed

The article needs disambiguation and restructuring badly. We should distinct between the weapon systems (i.e. mostly technical issues) and military organization (strategy, tactics, battle history, ranks so forth). One should know that "air defense" is not just a type of warfare, but also a name for the distinct military detachments (or whole forces - such as in USSR and North Korea). Would someone fix this because my English military terms are relatively poor (but ready to consult and discuss). AlexPU 17:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Making some progress. Nvinen 15:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to "Air Defense"?

The title "Anti-aircraft" sounds funny. Is it a noun? "Anti-aircraft warfare" or "Air defense" sounds much better. Comments? Kowloonese 21:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to get some kind of consensus on what the title for this article should be, since the current title seems awkward and ungrammatical. Something like "Anti-Aircraft warfare" or "Air Defense" would be good, I think. Something that's a noun, at least. Night Gyr 19:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to "Air defence", with a link from "Anti-aircraft" and possibly "Anti-aircraft warfare". I suppose it doesn't really matter if it's defence or defense but I'd put a link from one to the other to allow other articles to use either form. Nvinen 08:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Anti-aircraft warfare is the best choice. So I moved it and all links. Nvinen 14:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Air defence isn't just about ground-based weapons. It includes, for example, fighter interception, radar and observer corps (historically). So two separate articles are needed: an overview article about air defence in general, and a separate one that deals with AAA. Spliced 21:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

fuze/fuse

Is there a good reason "fuze" was changed to "fuse"? In my experience, the type of device we're talking about (proximity fuze, contact fuze, etc.) is usually spelled with a z. Dictionary.com agrees with me: [1]. I use fuze for this type of situation and fuse for, say, fusing two items together, despite the fact that I speak British English...

Shooting down aircrafts with small arms?

The current article states that most aircraft casualties in modern war are from small arms fire. that smells like bullshit to me. Fighters are armoured and it would be extremely difficult to shoot down a jet aircraft moving at mach 1.5 with a 9 mm. Shooting down low flying aircrafts with a bofors 40 mm would be much more likely.I would love to see some proof that most aircraft casualties are from small arms fire.

Does man-portable AA missiles count as small arms? (Forgive me if this question is stupid...)--Kultz 02:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No man portable AA missiles are not small arms. Small arms are conventional man portable firearms which shoot down a extremly minute amount of aircraft. Whoever wrote they shoot down the majority of aircraft must have missunderstood or something.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've often run across the claim that an advantage of the AK-47 over the M-16 is that the larger calibur ammunition was not particularly helpful against personell, but was an advantage in shooting at aircraft.

Perhaps, but when you're trying to shoot down an aircraft...you want full-auto like that of the AK-47 --mboverload 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "shooting down aircraft with small arms" mean shooting down helicoptors, not jets.

Tangential comment: small arms have a very low chance of hitting and damaging airplanes, but I understand that the Soviet Cold-War antiaircraft doctrine was that ever available weapon including small arms would be trying to fill the air in front of a low-flying NATO jet with lead. I suspect pistols and SMGs would not be eligible. —Michael Z. 2006-05-17 15:53 Z

That was US doctrine also; I recall questioning it at the time ;) DMorpheus (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an army manual on small arms air defense; it includes heavy machine guns as small arms.

Additionally, I wonder if anyone knows if anti-materiel rifles (.50 BMG) could actually be used in the AA defense. I've heard that the Finns shot down a few planes during WWII using their 20mm rifle, but I'd like to see a definitive study/manual about using anti-material rifles this way. (IMHO, shooting the pilot really shouldn't count as an AA kill...) --UnneededAplomb (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it counts as an AA kill. Unless of course you shot the pilot on the ground outside of his plane, maybe in a a bar or at his home. I don't think that would count as an AA kill.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

German Term

The german term stated as the root of flak is different from the one stated in the wiktionary. Here it is Flugabwehrkanone (and in the disambiguation page for flak), Wiktionary states Fliegerabwehrkanone.

(unsigned)

The correct German term really is Flugabwehrkanone. Please have a look at the German sister page as well as at at least somewhat authorative sites like http://www.geschichte.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN48PDnYDSYGYAYb6kTChoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq1YIQ/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzdfU1NI (History pages of German Airforce, sorry for long url) or http://www.bundesarchiv.de/bestaende_findmittel/bestaendeuebersicht/body.html?id_main=1643&where=naeheres&what=id_bestand&id_bestand=1643 (Federal German Archive catalogizing documents from WW 1, see first blue box). --MBP 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline in conventional flak

I have removed the passage that stated large long-range AAA guns like the 88mm no longer exist. This is incorrect, while their use has declined in favor of SA missilesthey are still used due to thie relative inexpensiveness.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to say that modern missiles have partly replaced the need for very large AA guns. —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:09 Z

Barrage balloons?

As someone who recently read Steinbeck's "Once there was a war", I got interested in the use of barrage balloons for air defense. As "Air defense" is redirected to "Anti-aircraft warfare", it would have been interesting to read someone knowledgeable's description of their use and effectivity.

Perhaps someone could add a section about that?

Anders Berglund 09:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Need separate article on AAA

This article is on the general topic. We have a specific article on SAMs, but we need an overview of guns too. Anybody up for splitting it out and repointing the redirects? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably it would be good if this anti-aircraft warfare article fitted into the same pattern as Armoured warfare ie that nice nav box down the side. Though how assymetric got in there - longbow vs french cavalry - not a sole technical advantage but more a combination of weapon and disposition. .55 Webley vs Maori war club that's a technical advantage. But I digressGraemeLeggett 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Skysweeper but no Soviet/Russian Guns?

Russian AAA weapons were utilized in air defense in North Vietnam and in other conflicts but is not mentioned in this article. Also, where would be mention of such weapons as "Shilka" or various other mobile AAA? Hatcat 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

B-24 20mm?

There is an amazing image of a B-24 breaking up after being hit by flak. The caption states it is 20mm fire, but the image page does not specify the source. Looking at the picture I'd estimate the aircraft is over 10k feet in altitude which makes it extremely unlikely this is a 20mm hit, and almost certainly an 88. Can anyone say more about this image? Maury 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Could be lots of things - 105mm flak, fighter cannon - who knows? I don't see how we can possibly know the bomber was hit by 88 mm fire. DMorpheus (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistent Mistake regarding 1-pounder Guns

The article claimed twice that guns firing a one-pound projectile are of 20 mm caliber. That is technically impossible, the heaviest 20 mm projectiles ever used were around 150-160 grm in weight, which is only a third of a pound. The actual caliber of the one-pounder guns used first as AAA , e.g. the Maxim Pom-Pom, was typically 37 mm. Now corrected. Textor 09:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only find one instance of "1 pound" in the article, and no calibre is mentioned. Am I missing something? Maury 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - my previously unmentioned edit of said problem. Look at the article's history, and compare the current with an earlier version. Textor 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Claim that Nike Ajax SAM was based on German Wasserfall

I deleted the following statement on the Ajax guided anti-air missile: (based on the German Wasserfall). According to the articles on the Nike_Ajax and the Wasserfall, the former was developed independently of the latter. The legacy of the Wasserfall is described as: After World War II, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101. Textor 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for Consistency across Articles on the same Subject

user:Maury_Markowitz reverted this delete, stating that the Wasserfall-NIke connection is well documented. In this case, may I suggest that the sources proving this connection be referenced, and the respective articles on the missiles updated to include the information? Otherwise, they will appear inconsistent, if not contradictory. Personally, I have currently no such sources available. Textor 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, last I checked, both the Wasserfall and Project Nike state this. Oh, no, I take that back, it appears Project Nike does not have this statement, at least any more.

The history that I have read, in several places, states that reports on Wasserfall were captured and returned to the US where they were evaluated as part of the existing BTL work on missile systems -- these had started in early 1944, but had remained strictly paper projects until Feb '45. Additionally, several Wasserfall C-1's were sent to the US. I've read this on several places on the 'web, and I believe I first heard it in one of Ian Hogg's books (typically fairly well checked, if lacking detail), but I'm guessing he was just quoting Lussar. At least one of these still exists, on display at Aberdeen.

That's not to say it's correct, however. I also have conflicting information which states that Wasserfall data was not known when they were compiling the AAGM Report of May '45. It was this report that led directly to the go-ahead on Project NIKE. But given this conflict I went with what I had seen "everywhere else" (for instance, Ed Thelen's notes). Nor should the language state that Ajaz WAS Wasserfall, Ajax was, of course, a far more developed and practical weapon. Maury 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've continued to try to find more information on this, and failed. It appears I may have been repeating an internet myth! I'm going to take the Army's word for it and move the mention of the possible Wasserfall link to a separate sentence. Maury 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Removal of PZA Loara Image

Three reasons: 1. the image was put in the introductory section, instead of the one on Post-War developments. If you want to restore it, please put it there 2. The PZA Loara may lack notability as a representative example for SPAAGs, compared to others: it is a recent project, used solely by Poland, and its technology appears unremarkable. Older, more widely employed SPAAGs like the Russian ZSU-23-4 Shilka, or the German Gepard, may make more recognizeabale examples. Alternatively, the Tunguska-M1 could be used as an example that is both more widely employed and technologically advanced. 3. The image is also already used as an illustration for the SPAAG article. Textor 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To the owner of the IP 89.76.87.63:

how about an explanation why you put up the above mentioned image again, in the same inappropriate place, in spite of its dubious relevance? Are there any good reasons why it has to be posted twice, in this article and the one on SPAAGS? Textor 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

effective altitudes

what a funny article...the whole thing is about anti-aircraft weapons, but no information is given for effective engagement altitudes of the weapons mentioned, or define what the various altitudes are in terms of defining the AA/AD units. --Mrg3105 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sawing off wings

The article states:

Because the Quad 50's 4 separate guns could be pre-set to converge at a given distance, it could saw off the wing of a low-flying enemy plane attempting to complete a strafing run.

This sounds like a military urban legend to me. Simple analysis: WW2 fighter plane speeds varied from about 275 knots (450 fps) to 390 knots (640 fps). Let's work with 450 fps to be conservative. The rate of fire of the .50 cal is around 500 rounds per minute, so a quad 50 is about 2,000 rounds per minute, or 33 rounds per second. Hence, if a plane flies past perpendicularly the average spacing between (potential) hits is 450 fps x 1/33 s = 13.5 feet, which is obviously not even in the ballpark of "sawing off wings". This spacing can be reduced by a factor of sinθ if the plane is flying not perpendicularly to the line of fire, but more or less straight at it, but it is going to have to be almost perfectly aligned to do any "sawing". In short this claim looks bogus to me.-- 202.63.39.58 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very likely a legend, though for different reasons:

making the barrels of a multiple-gun AA mount converge at a given distance would requiry rather complicated and precisely moveable installations for each gun - in addition to the ones needed for laying the whole mount. For all that complication, it would not add very much to the lethality of the weapon, but make hitting rapidly moving targets more difficult. Also, the .50 M2 Brownings with their moving barrels had a rather high dispersion, which would negate to some degree the possible benefit of concentration their fire.

As to the sawing off of wings: that may happend when lucky hits magange to break a wing spar, especially on lighly built aircraft like e.g. the Japanese Mitsubishi Zeros. But it would be much harder to achieve this effect with the small, non-explosive .50 projectiles, compared to the explosive shells of heavier AA-guns, like the German quadruple 20 mm Flak 38.

I suggest we remove this eddit, unless it can be properly referenced.

Textor 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference

a forum is not a proper refernce SubaruSVX (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

120 mm M1 Gun

Wikipedia entry for 120 mm M1 gun states " No 120 was ever fired at an enemy aircraft." Obviously it wasn't much use. Added this info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun