revolverswitch a machine gun is a kinetic energy weapon it’s bullets use kinetic energy to destroy targets it’s like saying particle cannon everything is made of particles
Mobile armoured AA is one of the most feared weapon systems from a guerrilla point of view. A 'hit and run' ambush will easily turn to a "got hit before could run" disaster if the convoy is accompanied by a couple of armoured 25-40 mm multi barrel AA vechiles.
Free Electron Pulse Laser/non-IR laser in general: hold my beer (proceeds to zap aircraft, missiles, artillery shells, and bombs) Most military lasers use IR frequencies, which are pretty bad as a laser.
na, because of drones they just became necessary. also, i aggree on the economic side. a nation cant throw guided missles/shells at everything that moves... thats why "tube-arty" still exists. iam actualy surprised that these "prob.-CAS-planes" have not become more popular, they probably cost the same as an medium/longrange SAM :-)
@@khornedmaple The typical CAS aircraft isn't expendable and EVERYONE who hasn't worked with a CAS aircraft and its pilot simply DO NOT understand the value of the old "MK1 eyeball" and the brain to which it is attached. In trucking, you have an old adage about backing... "GOAL = Get Out And Look." GOAL is important in Infantry operations too and CAS can give the Infantry a type of "high ground advantage" in a fight. Drones have a fairly limited "field of view" which is why you hear about them frequently getting shot down and even high-resolution imaging STILL needs a human brain to assess the threat. The CAS pilot can do this in "real-time" which is a BIG advantage.
@@DanieleCapellini yes I would believe that. Tell me hundreds of thousands of NK people aren’t starving to death either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Low flying pilot: nooo, I can't just be shut down with direct cannon fire, this isn't WWII! I'm going Mach 1.2! AAA operator: "haha, autocannon go brrrr!"
as the Russian badger said "Its just the ultimate form or throwing a rock". Guns are just the evolution of a bow and arrow. which is an evolution of a sling.
@@deadjustdead3425 ua-cam.com/video/7Dtv8ibI1vk/v-deo.html It's a long episode, and It's probably in the first quarter or half, when they talk about throwing rock's. But the whole episode is great.
@@sandemike the way they flew was intended to avoid American AA. They would either fly high and dive straight down or fly so low that the AA couldn’t depress far enough.
@@Yum_Yum_Delicious_Cum Well that was when guided missile technology was still new and they were working the bugs out. Now I find it hard to imagine a fighter taking out another fighter with guns.
I would personally feel much safer on for example a boat if i knew there was an actual gun fitted as a last ditch measure for whatever managed to make it through the other lines of defense. That's one of the reasons why i love the Phalanx so much.
After the Beirut barracks bombing we had to set up another perimeter. I don't know where it came from but we got a 40mm Bofors mounted on a trailer, (WWII vintage). We never got harassed at that check point again.
Aircraft have counter-measures against missiles. They don't have counter-measures against bullets. Also missiles are expensive as hell and are dependent on things like heat and chemical exhaust trails.
Also keeping constant supply of missiles is a lot more expensive AND harder, while more or less passive ammunition is a lot easier to transport in various configurations of packaging. Reloading ammunition is also easier, it does not require special equipment and can be done by hand (though inertial/pre-loaded exoskeletons will make it as easy as drinking water), missiles, depending on the size, may require separate logistics and machinery
Basically, Hezbollah/Hamas could bankrupt Israel by launching a sustained mortar/artillery attack. As each protocols costs $50, and each Israeli missile is like $50k.
@@demun6065 Well thats exactly what they are trying. But Israel luckily wipes out their mortar/rocket positions in a matter of hours after they start firing.
@@colderwar No...the Russians design IADS for all altitude envelopes. SA6 for medium altitude, AA and IR missiles for low altitude. If you try to fly low to avoid radar u get hit with AAA and manpads. Look up Vietnam war, most of the losses were due to AAA as they cannot fly at medium alt due to SA 2.
Thing is, unlike sam’s, conventional cannon rounds truly are omni-purpose. Just as useful against most light ground targets as they are against air targets
AA guns aren’t obsolete. These are still great against Helicopters, huge drones and heavy drop ships (like a C-130). For supersonic jets and small missiles It would be better to use laser anti air weaponry. Also anti air guns would be improvised against infantry or light armor
Lasers are still pretty new and more for shooting down nukes/large missiles. Id think missiles are best against fast jets. And bullets and cannons are good against helis or soft ground targets
EVERY. SINGLE. MAJOR. ADVANCEMENT. in technology has been hailed as the end-all-be-all. TNT, battleships, tank’s, airplanes, nuclear weapons. And yet despite all the advancement in the last 150 years, every one of those systems is still in service in one form or another. The reason? Because they’re needed. Today’s combat is so thickly multi-layered no one system can have a hope of winning the day or performing its task on its own. Look at AA missiles, sure they can cover 50km. Cool. So what happens when someone manages to sneak up within say 2 or 3km? AA gun. Sure a laser has zero travel time, but what happens when you lack the chemical fuels or cryogenics needed to make it work? AA gun. Need to take out light vehicles but no tanks or dedicated anti-vehicle weapons? AA gun. Every time a new tech has attempted to supplant an older tech it just creates a vulnerability. AA guns are here to stay because they work too well and are too versatile to do away with.
Yah, it’s like someone trying to replace the AK platform with the AN platform, just because its new and better doesn’t mean you should replace the old guns immediately especially since it is vastly more complicated.
Laser's worst enemy? cloudy or humid environment. That is why lasers arent deployed on a massive scale. They rely heavily on the conditions of the atmosphere.
Well, unless gm gets off their lazy asses and invents the fusion engine and high powered voip become a reality. Something in the 40 mega watt range preferably.
Plus, AA guns can chew fortifications in a matter of minutes. It can also demoralize enemy infantries easily just by hearing the loud thud AA makes when firing.
Anti aircraft guns can, in some circumstances, be considered *triple use.* With a sophisticated enough fire control system they can be used as point defence, the CIWS being the obvious example. But it's now being scaled down to systems on tanks that shoot down (or at least destabilize enough to prevent a clean hit and penetration) incoming rounds from RPG's and so forth. Such a system would also be very worrisome to the guy firing said RPG, and anything low flying as well.
The technology for active tank protection was being tested for a long time. Soviets in the 80s or earlier had few experimental tank mounted anti missile systems. The issues were mostly with cost and the danger to infrantry if the system was to be used. It is basicly a frag grenade exploding infront of the tank at that point.
@@shepardpolska If there is no active protection system, and lets say, a tank has allied infantry nearby(which is normal), and an RPG hits the tank. Would the infantry be totally safe from frags 100% of the time? Hmm.. this sorta reminds me of what peopIe say about ERA. If you are near a tank, and the tank is hit, the ERA will kiII you. But if there is no ERA, infantry nearby will be safe. TOTALLY safe.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 The infrantry would be way more safer. For one, RPGs explode on contact with the armor, the fragments only go to the sides. An active protection detonates what is practicaly a big fragmentation warhead a few meters away from the tank. The active systems are made to create fragmentation while most HEAT warheads are not. Then there is the issue that if an RPG hits a tank, the enemy might kill your infrantry. If the tank has active protection, you have a much bigger chance that the infrantry will be harmed, and it is practicaly friendly fire. Air burst is more dangerous to infrantry then contact fuses. And this is just what the soviets decided after testing them. The danger to infrantry was one of the official worries that closed the program
I disagree, back when the Tunguska System (predecessor of the Panzir) was developed they chose to include the gun system because it offered faster engagement times against liw flying aircraft. This was mid eighties though, when they fully expected to have to deal with aircraft like Tornados coming in really low with the MW-1 system. Back then Hawgs where flying NIE as well. Also missiles do have a minimum range, while cannons don't really have one, in the air defense role that is. Edit: for Matt, guedd what Flak stands for?😉 Fliegerabwehrkanone= Anti-Aircraft defence cannon/Cannon for defending against aircraft 😉 what we also know as Anti-Aircraft Artillery.😉 The bigger autocannon AAA like the 35-40mm still have that shrapnel capability, it's only the smaller 20mm and 30mm or lower that don't have it.
Only a handful of countries have jets. Even less have helicopters. And the likelihood of a country with current gen fighters engaging another is almost 0. However guns are still useful. If a plane gets close enough, be it jet or propeller powered, a gun could engage quickly. The plane cant detect artillery until its already being hit.
Quote Brit Officer WW2 "We wondered how effective smaller German AA guns were, a truck drive on to the road within seconds it was aflame we wondered no more."
@@Dread_Pirate_Homesteader the western front of WW1 had massive air battles above the trenches. They may be primitve bi-planes but they were aircraft nonetheless.
i remember watching a video of insurgents almost killing a high ranking soldier by dropping a hand grenade on him from a cheap quad rotor drone so it seems like a viable threat
Although it is obviously better than losing a high ranking Officer, it would be overkill and otherwise a waste of money to shoot down drones with AA guns. 5 30mm rounds(or less) costs more than the quad drown that it is shooting down. If drones are a frequent threat, than something like Tungsten buckshot or an MG would be a better suit.
@@MPdude237 well very hard to hit a drone with a MG, shotguns don't have range. Yes AA is expensive but if you have a $1000 drone dropping a small mortar granate on your key assets, it is worth it.
@@2157AF trust me very hard to hit drone with a MG, unless just hovering. No need a .50. We exercised AA with MG3 against RC planes, using AA sights. Drones are even more mobile. There is a reason why people use shotgun for duck hunting.
It's not much different in Arma 3 when you run around as Infantrist, on the other hand if you are in a Jet and know there is one, you can usually knock them out pretty safely.
AA artillery commonly plays the role of close infantry support. You dont really need MBT all around for taking out sniper nests if you has AA gun available. It is especially useful in the mountain area were you can not even bring MBT everywhere.
This is just not true. "Commonly"? Not even close. Yes, we've seen the Coviets create a variant of the Shilka the so-called "Afghan" variant, because the other armoured vehicles couldn't get the gun elevation to fire on the Mujahedeen in the mountains. But lets be real, this is not common usage, and Russia is just throwing whatever it has in inventory at Ukraine. Its also not Artillery. The Shilka fires a 23mm round, hardly artillery. We haven't really seen AAA since WW2 with the 88mm Flak cannon. These days, its either Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) or C-RAM style anti air guns.
@@robertoroberto9798But no competent military is using an aa gun in place of the main Battle tank. And if you just need a smaller tank make or procure a light tank
1:40 to answer it as shortly as I can, f4 phantom during the Vietnam war taught a lot, so we are DEFINETLY are going to use this in the near future just as a last resort weapon if everything else fails
Royal Navy went to the Falklands with missiles. I wonder why there was a refit of ships afterwards with Phalanx CIWS. Is the answer on the bottom of the sea?
@@ahorsewithnoname643 Well, CIWS was only introduced into the USN two years earlier. The Falklands War occurred at a time of transition for both attackers and defenders. The older destroyers of the RN were designed for long range defense against Soviet nuclear bombers. The RN was in the process of upgrading both radars and defensive weapons. They can't be faulted for either the change of weapons, nor that it takes times to refit the fleet.
Honestly, the whole F4 thing is an urban legend at best. Very few kills were actually recorded with the guns; they were added for ground support and happened to be added at the same time as multiple avionics/weapon upgrades that played a much larger role in air to air combat. Want more proof? Gunless Navy F4s had a better kill/loss ratio than the Air Force F4s.
Makes me think of the dawn of the missile era in aviation. “They don’t need a gun because the missiles will handle every problem.” What was the funny looking thing that was mounted under the F-4 shortly after? A gun. Love the channel Matt!!
And it got a whopping 6 kills out of over a hundred missile kills by USAF F-4s during Vietnam, negatively impacted flight performance and forced the use of a smaller radar. Meanwhile the Navy never adopted internal guns. Hmmmm. Also, the F-4 was a naval interceptor and it definitely did not need a gun because you want the interceptor to meet the attacker and fire a missile at range. You won't have the time for the getting into gun position nonsense or else the carrier you're supposed to protect will eat a few anti-ship missiles.
Titanium Rain: Thanks for the info! Learn something new everyday. Didn’t think the gun really helped too much but with the twisting and turning of dog fights over land and the failure of early missiles to track and detonate did seem to make a case for guns. I do agree that intercepts need to happen a long way out from a TF for best protection. Guns are most always a good thing to have. AA guns are no exception.
No matter how a war starts, it always end up with two guys trying to bash the other's head in with a brick. There is value in low tech as long as it's available.
Totally agree anti aircraft artillery when placed on a highly mobile platform can be a major force multiplier on the ground and air it wont all go to missiles like you say cost!! That Rhinemettal cannon just looks awesome
As a former AD officer I’ve got to say you have most of it right, IMO. I really appreciated you even got the logistics point in there which internet geniuses in the comment section often ignore. Also drone threats are going to challenge current missiles. You are looking forward. But also, guns can now shoot missiles, and I think multiple warhead (think MIRV style) ATGMs are going to soon be a thing. Going to need to reach out and touch them before they separate. The level you are missing is that much of the debate gets decided by politics in the US Army. Both due to intra service competition as well as inter service competition. Also, the procurement system is rigged against AD just like it is CAS. Army Generals don’t want to spend money or use logistics assets on something they want the Air Force to deal with. It’s even worse, traditionally (unless things have changed) AD gets mostly the unwanted leftovers of the Academy along with the Chemical Corps (Some excellent officers choose it, but then they fill the slots with the remains) Also, the Air Force doesn’t want the “idiot ground pounders” shooting anything in the sky because it might be them. AD weapon systems rarely make it to the troops unless they are really cheap and evolutionary. They nearly killed Stinger in Congress by circular firing squad. First they say it’s too complex for the troops, then, they gave us the lowest scoring recruits out of spite! If you ask me, we would be better off if all the dedicated AD systems were Air Force and all the CAS systems (A-10, etc) were Army. Look at how they always want to dump the A-10. The Army generals aren’t afraid of losing soldiers to air attack, and the Air Force doesn’t worry about failure to provide CAS. Any incidents of failure are going to simply be blamed on the other service or lack of funding (which if granted will then be redirected towards the main missions of those services). Keep up the cool vids!
An interesting point. Maybe the US Army is so dismissive towards AD because their military doctrine relies on air superiority? Soviets, on the contrary, always treated AD very seriously. As officers who served in AD used to say, "We ain't flying and neither will you". So the AD command of Ground Forces has it all: AA guns for
@@alexrogov7186 Absolutely. The US Army very much has gotten used to the Supremacy of the US Air Force. Similarly, everyone else plans on it as well. Of course, all good things must come to an end.
The fact that some of the newer systems can shoot down things as small as a mortar makes them more useful since they can protect an area from artillery as well.
4:31 Yes, missiles are very logistics, and maintenance intensive to upkeep. They are also much more difficult (also more expensive) to properly train personnel on. Well, at least when compared to conventional gun systems *(which is pretty much, what EVERY amateur missile proponent overlooks every time).* It's primarily, because missiles have very expensive, and sophisticated electronics, in their sensors, and flight computer. It also kinda explains why a majority of missiles are kept inside boxes/containers......doing this apparently helps prevents these sensitive electronics from being damaged *(or messed up in some way)* by the outside environment.
Hey Matsimus, so I saw this and I noticed you made a very good point about how most AAA is radar guided nowadays. This makes me wonder: how would this help against something with SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) armaments? These types of weapons lock onto enemy radar signatures and then destroy those radars (and ideally the weapons system connected to it). Do you think you could do a video on SEAD weapons, how they’re employed, and how to counter them? Additionally, I’m totally in agreement with you on the premise that conventional AAA isn’t going anywhere because there are a couple points with missile based air defenses that I think were overlooked here: stealth and countermeasures. While even radar based AAA would have trouble with stealth aircraft, there’s not exactly any kind of countermeasures for good old fashioned flak fire. Missiles in addition to their failure ratings can be thrown off by chaff and flares (standard loadouts for most modern aircraft) at least long enough to get out of range of a second shot. Just a little tidbit I figured I’d add on. Always love watching your stuff!
No, theyre more important than ever. Its partly due to near-peers like Russia and China still maintaining an effective air fleet, but its also due to the proliferation of low-cost, easy-to-use unmanned aerial systems. Air defense(in this case more specifically SHORADs) remains a vital and integral part of any military planner's arsenal.
@@AutismIsUnstoppable No they are not. US and it's close Al'lies are behind the frictions, tensions and chaos throughout the World. Nature of the hegemon Beast.
With the rising use of massed drone attacks that missiles are just wasted on and don't have the capacity to tale down, I thinl guns will see a resurgance if anything.
@APCOPILOT No one would nuke the atmosphere over their own country to destroy a drone swarm. Also, those things are becomming more and more autonomous. So jamming won't work either.
@APCOPILOT The problem is to detect the drones as well. They are small and nimble enough to get so close as to sneak in undetected if needed. The more they are developed the harder they will be to counter. though i can imagine small auto turrets will be a future development. You only need like a 5.56mm round in a computer aimed system locking on and firing within a 200m range and watch them fall out of the sky fast.
It will be interesting to see how advanced anti-aircraft guns perform in actual combat against drones, cruse missiles, helicopters and low flying aircraft.
I could say the only way AAA becomes obsolete is the perfection of directed energy weapons. Directed energy weapons have the downside of requiring massive amounts of power but AAA requires lots of AMMO and would be no different than a power supply.
Think with energy weapons you have few issues still. Power is the main one. Weather another. Those videos with lasers being used shows targets are often exposed number of seconds before destruction. So you need extremely good targeting
@@jantschierschky3461 I do not disagree with you that Energy weapons have a long way to go because of thier flaws. but if they are perfected i can see them out classing AAA, as to targeting, because the weapon is firing at the speed of light there is no need to lead the target like AAA. so holding on to a target would be the same as aiming and that would be done with computers. as to weather, depends on the light specrum, IR and microwave are better in adverse weather... but AAA is here to stay until the energy problems are solved
@@gijoe41688 the issue is still energy, unless you have mobile fusion reactor, or capacitor than can store 100s and of megawatts. Also there is a recharge gap. So it may happen in the future not sure in my lifetime so
Could you do a video on drone swarming technology? It's something that I think many would like. It's a very simple idea, but very complex in both theory and practice. You have a talent of presenting a large amount of information in a concise & easy to understand manner.
Another point to keep in mind is that the great majority of anti-aircraft system deployments are to around fixed positions to be protected, like urban areas and bases, even small forward bases. Many are also deployed on mobile systems to protect convoys of vehicles on the move. Rarely is an anti-aircraft system deployed with troops on the move at the front of the battlefield.
Finally someone that's speaking my language. I think we've overengineered our anti-aircraft defenses these days. We could do a lot with Flak guns these days.
1:40 as a sci fi nerd I can tell you lasers won't replace all CIWS even if we tried their actually very simple but horrifying solutions to counter lasers such as simply rolling, putting ultra white paint, ablative metal, etc their so many ways
Guns should be part of a layered system of AA defense. In the US it should be THAAD then Patriot, then something similar to the old Hawk batteries then Stingers and mobile AA guns. Guns are especially important when dealing with drones, helicopters and can also be useful in hitting infantry in the open or even ripping apart APCs/IFVs. A 35mm chain gun will rip open most infantry vehicles quite easily. I still am a huge fan of how the Italians put a 76mm rapid fire gun on a tank chassis. Gave it radar and a high angle mounting.. That would be an ideal anti drone weapon now a days.
as for the US a new 50mm bushmaster seems to be promising. There was even a study to develop a guided round for it. For the smallest and cheapest targets just add laser.
@@solarissv777 having a round that can air burst and put out sufficient shrapnel is really important. The 20, 25 and 30s really don't have the ability.
@@admiraltiberius1989 well, alternatively, something similar to German AHEAD can be done: ditch almost all the explosives, leave gust enough to destroy the round itself, and fill the empty space with steel/tungsten buckshot. Upon the round destruction said buckshot will be dispersed with centrifugal force of the spinning round, thus one can get more shrapnel for a smaller round.
I agree with you. That is why, in the event of conflict, aircraft are very careful around the ZSU-23 Shilka. Radar on guns share the same vulnerabilities as radar in missile systems. ECM can ruin your day.
ECM, especially noise jamming, simply wouldn't do anything to close-range guns. By virtue of thier in-visual range engagement profile, most modern radars will burn through most ECM once the aircraft gets in range. Of course, most ECM systems are highly classified, probably due to the fact that they rely on technical deception. Their benefits would quickly fall apart of the enemy knew the tricks that the ECM was pulling.
@@johanmetreus1268 True. An AA gun probably isn't carrying AP ammo. Still, if the shell actually hits before it pops, it could knock out most vehicles that aren't real tanks. A single 40mm Bofors round is supposed to be the rough equivalent of 5 hand grenades.
@@Elthenar "A single 40mm Bofors round is supposed to be the rough equivalent of 5 hand grenades" Not very likely due to simple physics, as a40 mm shell is barely the same weight as a single hand grenade. "An AA gun probably isn't carrying AP ammo. Still, if the shell actually hits before it pops, it could knock out most vehicles that aren't real tanks" Most AA-guns since WWII have a small supply of AT-rounds just in case, but the main point here isn't a direct hit, as that will be the end of any aircraft. Where the armour makes a difference is against small calibre fire and shrapnel, preventing a near hit from taking the aircraft or vehicle out.
@@johanmetreus1268 What I said about the Bofors is a direct quote from Vietnam after action reports. They had M42 Dusters but all they normally did with them is sweep the forest. Apparently it was highly effective. Remember that a hand grenade is mostly metal. A Bofors round has a much higher amount of explosive per ounce than a grenade.
Still needed. If a war goes on for some time time then "older" technology will come into play. Ships have guns as last line of defence so why not on land? Falklands conflict had soldiers on deck firing rifles at incoming missile when radar lock was lost on Exocet that was incoming. Watched this on seconds from disaster documentary
Yes just re watched seconds from disaster on HMS Coventry sinking.Deck gun and rifles where fired at jet flying in to drop bombs. HMS Broad Sword and Coventry lost radar lock on Argentine jets because of an error in manoeuvres in the stress of battle.
I would say no, as a helicopter pilot or a soldier on the ground the last thing I would wanna run across is a ZSU-23 (or anything along those lines) lmao
Honestly I was unfamiliar with the arguments for and against the removal of AA artillery. I had just assumed it was being phased out regardless. You brought up many points I had yet to consider and have given me quite a bit to think about. Won’t say you’ve entirely convinced me to one side but you definitely moved the needle for me and I found the arguments fascinating all the same. Great vid hope to see many more like it.
Ah, so that's why the Russian AA system has a radar, missiles and auto-cannons in one package. There was a scene in "Generation Kill" where an attack helicopter destroys an old AA auto-cannon tank (ZSU) from close range.
An aspect uncovered: AAA was often used in ground combat starting in WWII. Remember guns up to 88mm were highly useful against ground targets, let alone all sorts of machine cannons. And that stayed through most major conflicts of my lifetime like the Falkland War (Goose Green for example) through the Balkan Wars to this day when ZSU-23s are engaged in urban warfare in Syria. Conventional FLAK is just versatile.
Norwegian armour piercing 12,7 mm amo penetrates a Hind at 1000 m. 40 mm Bofors amo penetrates any now existing aircraft. So whomever said that is wrong.
Absolutely, 20mm will almost surely pull them out of the sky let alone 35 and 40. 30 avnger (a-10) defeat top tank armour. Who ever said that stupid sjit needs a reality check
@@hailexiao2770 and in missile defences and countermeasures... Missiles are great till you’re in a large scale war and realise how much everything costs when you need to fight for more than a couple weeks of large scale battles...
If any AAA or SPAAG is engaging air targets that means the SAM systems or any/all other missile capable anti air systems in the network have failed. Plus you can have AAA near the front lines defend itself from infantry and LAV's. SAM systems wouldnt and arent capable of defending themselves close up to ground forces.
@@elkapro6534 The war crime only applies if it is an emergency parachute jump it does not apply if the paratroopers are making an insertion as in attacking. And the aircraft they are jumping out of is fair game as well.
If AAA and SPAAG are engaging aircraft it means your layered missile defence has worked. The SAM forced American aircraft down low into the shilkas kill envelope in vietnam. A proper layered air defence network should have both long range missiles and short range guns. To rule both high and low.
Yep, and that high tech weapon is great on paper but if history tells us anything, once people work out a way to deal with it, you can’t modify it in a hurry to deal with new threats... Whereas our old tech, well there isn’t many ways to stop a bullet or artillery shell other than to hide behind or potentially under something...
13:20 is that my bae, I see? Shilka, the only lawn ornament I've ever wanted (not sure how my neighbors would feel about it, though). Something about the look of that thing I just love. I don't think AAA guns are (or should) go anywhere. Even as expensive as they can get, I think they are still likely much more cost effective for close range than missile system. Overlapping specialized systems with varying ranges just seems much better for any military that can afford it, rather than trying to find a "one size fits all" AAA solution.
8:47 Lol. Just, because missiles are getting cheaper, it doesn't mean that the same thing can't apply for anti aircraft guns (not to mention the fact that both types of weapon systems can evolve at the same pace). One of the reasons weapons (of any type) get cheaper is, because they get produced in vast quantities. The more stuff, the less expensive it is. You could apply this same thing to AA gun shells, and they will still be magnitudes less expensive than missiles. Even if the missiles get overproduced in large quantities.
Back in the 90s the German Airforce tried to change from AA guns to pure missile defence for airfields short-range defence. Bad idea. Consistently the missile locations were lost to commando attacks (simulated) and thus holes appeared in the protective screen. The problem was not solved during my active time but I remember discussions about adding emplacements for automated guns... Basically, as long as there are targets to fire at, at short range, the AA-Gun will have significant value.
just read an article where the US army developed a system where they can shoot down cruise missiles with a howitzer... which is pretty badass. Anyhow seeing by what is going on in Syria which actually has fairly advanced air defense systems that still get overwhelm on regular basis. All these systems have limitations and if you know the limitation like it an only track x projectiles and you shoot x+2 or something any future air war with modern militaryies will be fairly short. I totally agree thu, anti-aircraft guns are much better solution for the new drone/low velocity threat.
Using a howitzer to lounch an AA round is not a bad idea. Standard long range 155 howitzer round could reach targets flying higher than 10km (30k ft) as far as 30km+ (20 miles) away. Max. Altitude for the projectile is 20km+ (60,000ft+).
@@rikulappi9664 that is awesome info but they shot a regular high velocity 155 round. It is really the fact that they could track and timing it right thats impressive.
@@Crazylalalalala My father was trained in using flak 88 in the early 60's. The two WW2 88 Flaks under his command were able to fire two rounds in a live fire exercise close enough to the target towed by a jet airplane and not only tear the target to pieces but also to hit and cut the wire between the towing jet and the target. If the Germans did create such technology over 70 years ago the US is likely to do much better today.
Matsimus, great content as always. But, we have to look at AA systems from a layered system. Its not an either or question. Take into consideration that the cost of sat-communication feeding Intel to the AA system, it has its place from a national security standpoint. It's 1/10 the cost of a missile and anyone who can turn a wrench on a volkswagen can support it. 👍🏿
I think it falls in the same vane as when the US tried to make a multi role fighter without a cannon or gun. I think we will still need the guns they are just becoming less used but may still be necessary in some cases
@@randomuser5443 it is really dangerous to do strafing runs against any country with manpads or heavy mg/AA even the a10 preferred to bombs and maverick missiles because they took alot of damage during strafing runs
@@kameronjones7139 What weapons are used depends on the target and situation. In the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars the guns were used quite often when troops were in contact and were to close for other weapons to be used. And that was despite a latent threat of those low level threats you mentioned. (HMGs and MANPADS) Which conflicts are you speaking off? The problem with most post-Vietnam Wars and conflicts with US involvement did have a favourable situation for the US all the way from the strategic level down to tactical, which allowed the US and allied forces to disengage if necessary. The Iran-Iraq war, a conflict among peers which lasted eight years and ended abiut two years before the Gulf War did produce several gun kills. It's better to have guns and not use them than to need them and not have them. Missiles can fail to hit as the most recent US kill has shown, both Niner-X Sidewinders failed to hit and a third shot with the AMRAAM was needed. And that was because the enemy aircraft was a Fitter that tried to run. Which gave the Superbugthe chance for that AMRAAM shot. Imagine that being a Fulcrum that tries to fight it out instead of running. The provlem with most of the "guns are a thing of the past"-advocates, is that you always assume perfect conditions and total tactical freedom to be available to you. Remember, the enemy get's a vote too.
The one key thing the Falklands War taught us is that AA guns and other projectile weapons are a vital part of a combined defence for ground, air and land forces. The example of the German '88 flak cannon showed how a weapon can be re-tasked effectively.
AA guns will never be obsolete in warfare as long as they can turn fast enough to hit the target they can easily take down a plane just dont use manually aimed guns
The thermal or FLIR clip where you can see the ammunition explosion and the pieces of shrapnel is awesome. You dont ever get to see artillery from that perspective! 👍🏼🤙🏼✊🏼✌🏼🤪🐎🪑🤮🌳🚪
a 5.56mm bullet can destroy an ATGM with a single hit an ATGM travels subsonicly and you have more than 5 sec to engage on a range of 100-2000meters imagine MBTs equiped with ciws systems to deal with such threats in open areas a 5.56mm gatling gun can fire fast enough to almost guarantee the missile kill this 5.56mm gun will also be very useful as a main machinegun against infantry the main problem is the cost of the little ciws considering mass production it could be possible to equip these on mbts costing 3+million$
You are absolutely right about missiles. Just look at the current shortage on chips and semiconductors in the market due to the pandemic. Now imagine that a war is breaking out with supply chains ruptured - where do you get on the long run sufficient components for complex technologies like missiles?
@@m4albino201 yeah some of them are hand cranked. Usually the 40mm and 57mm are hand cranked. The zsu 23 are electric, but they still require a well trained crew. There is an old propanda video 4 years ago. Still is valid in my opinion considering they always put it in their large parades.
so let me show you my point who wins an automated system or a manual system? like would you rather have a system that can do what a well trained gun crew can do and mass produce it or would you rather have an anti air system that requires the training of a well trained crew to operate like I would rather not go through months of training to use an anti aircraft gun that can't even aim at a plane flying directly over at the speed of mach 1-2
When there's a game of smart weapons vs countermeasures, nothing beats a dumb ol' piece of metal being shot at hundreds of miles an hour in a big curtain. Works on infantry too!
Also one of the important things about Missile AAs and Gun AA is that the AA guns can fight against enemy infantry or unarmored transport when shows up out of nowhere. They can shower them with that 20/35 mm ammo with great rate of fire! While the missile AAs can leave the place or fight with HMGs at best!
Want to enjoy some A-10 30mm BRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT......Check this out! ua-cam.com/video/hRWHarvQAOs/v-deo.html
what's the song at the start?
Can you make a video on humvee armor and it's defect s
can y0u make a video about Turkeys swarm uav operations ??
@ 1:01 > "And the "threats" to Us in the military." > Oh, Matsimus -- you are sublime.
For me to be honest mat
Modern Anti aircraft guns will be totally use today
On enemy missile of it
And that will be no obsolete
AA guns will never be obsolete as long as you can mount one in the back of a Toyota truck.
Now thats facts
@@revolverswitch you can use the car as a kinetic energy weapon 😉
Great, now I want to see an 88 on a Toyota.
Arsenal XA4 it’s in my head, and it’s awesome
revolverswitch a machine gun is a kinetic energy weapon it’s bullets use kinetic energy to destroy targets it’s like saying particle cannon everything is made of particles
The best thing about AA guns, if they no longer become viable for aircraft, there's nothing stopping you from using them for anti infantry.
Or anti hearing
Yeah really good anti personnel gun with that 40mm cannon
Mobile armoured AA is one of the most feared weapon systems from a guerrilla point of view. A 'hit and run' ambush will easily turn to a "got hit before could run" disaster if the convoy is accompanied by a couple of armoured 25-40 mm multi barrel AA vechiles.
@@rikulappi9664 Like, I think in Grozny, the Russians realized that they can use the shilkas to reach chechens firing from rooftops.
Or Tank like German 88.
Can fool a missile but you can't fool a 20-35mm round
You can fool the aiming system (maybe)
Yub, you jink to not be where the gun system predicts you to be.
Just saturate the entire airspace
Some people think they can outsmart me...maybe...maybe
I've yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet
@@averagewikipediaenthusiast3088 most AA and CIWS have TV or FLIR or both so if need be they can be remotely aimed by a person.
"I've yet to see a man to outsmart bullet"
- Heavy weapons guy
It cost 400000 dollars to fire this weapon for 12 seconds.
-Heavy weapons guy
Now we even have smarter bullets
I've yet to see flares, chaff, and aircraft made of funny shapes outsmart a large, technologically advanced bullet.
Tf2 reference
High power laser defenses: *Locks onto incoming target*
Rain or Snow: "i'm about to end this systems entire career"
Mirrors: *Hold my lenses*
Dust and mud...
Free Electron Pulse Laser/non-IR laser in general: hold my beer (proceeds to zap aircraft, missiles, artillery shells, and bombs)
Most military lasers use IR frequencies, which are pretty bad as a laser.
Aaron Neumann
*EMPs : You're talking a lot of shit for someone within EMP distance*
@@Proger-sj8cj EMPs are very difficult to generate with anything other than a nuke and when they are they are extremely weak and short-ranged
na, because of drones they just became necessary.
also, i aggree on the economic side. a nation cant throw guided missles/shells at everything that moves... thats why "tube-arty" still exists.
iam actualy surprised that these "prob.-CAS-planes" have not become more popular, they probably cost the same as an medium/longrange SAM :-)
prop CAS you mean?
@Leon Lopez Finally they realized that sending A-10s on insurgents, which are basically light infantries is a tad bit overkill
Imo, prop-CAS are just worse drones.
Why waste a pilot on an expendable aircraft?
@@khornedmaple The typical CAS aircraft isn't expendable and EVERYONE who hasn't worked with a CAS aircraft and its pilot simply DO NOT understand the value of the old "MK1 eyeball" and the brain to which it is attached. In trucking, you have an old adage about backing... "GOAL = Get Out And Look." GOAL is important in Infantry operations too and CAS can give the Infantry a type of "high ground advantage" in a fight. Drones have a fairly limited "field of view" which is why you hear about them frequently getting shot down and even high-resolution imaging STILL needs a human brain to assess the threat. The CAS pilot can do this in "real-time" which is a BIG advantage.
Really good point their prefect for countering massed light aircraft
North Korean leaders love anti-aircraft guns... their relatives, not so such.
I doubt that, they're literally letting it penetrate them
@@Sol_Invictus_ True... although they don't have much options.
Welp, the Defence Chief of the North Korea was executed by Anti-Aircraft Guns😂
Y’all would literally believe shit like that, then turn around and say it’s North Koreans that are the most brainwashed.
@@DanieleCapellini yes I would believe that. Tell me hundreds of thousands of NK people aren’t starving to death either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Low flying pilot: nooo, I can't just be shut down with direct cannon fire, this isn't WWII! I'm going Mach 1.2!
AAA operator: "haha, autocannon go brrrr!"
Not flying low and fast enough.
@@quazar5017 go lower
you cant really dodge a giant cloud of high velocity shrapnel fired at you with laser accuracy
At that point its the plane coliding with the projectiles lol
@@theholyhay1555 Go so low that you just land the plane and call it a day
as the Russian badger said "Its just the ultimate form or throwing a rock". Guns are just the evolution of a bow and arrow. which is an evolution of a sling.
Which video though I need to see it
@@deadjustdead3425 William Von Hippel talks about how the human brain evolved due to throwing rock's. It's on Joe Rogan. A great episode
demun oh I gonna try to find it but if you can can you put the video link down below? Idk which one
@@deadjustdead3425
ua-cam.com/video/7Dtv8ibI1vk/v-deo.html
It's a long episode, and It's probably in the first quarter or half, when they talk about throwing rock's. But the whole episode is great.
demun thank you for the link my friend and have a good day
One thing will always remain true. If you throw up a enough lead nothing can survive flying through it.
Jap Kamikaze pilots could and did.
@@sandemike then shoot more lead
@@sandemike the way they flew was intended to avoid American AA. They would either fly high and dive straight down or fly so low that the AA couldn’t depress far enough.
Das Blocc of lead
@@sandemike Haha, kamikaze goes *BOOM*
"Are they obsolete?"
Didn't we ask this about guns on fighters some time ago? 🤔
They already thought that in vietnam with the F4 phantom they put gun pods on it later anyways
Any links to this video?
@@Yum_Yum_Delicious_Cum Well that was when guided missile technology was still new and they were working the bugs out. Now I find it hard to imagine a fighter taking out another fighter with guns.
@@user-uy1rg8td1v With stealth tech, that is exactly what you should imagine
@@user-uy1rg8td1v I honestly dont. As missiles have advanced, so have a jets defensive electronic systems.
"Some people think they can outsmart me...maybe...but I've yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet"
I would personally feel much safer on for example a boat if i knew there was an actual gun fitted as a last ditch measure for whatever managed to make it through the other lines of defense. That's one of the reasons why i love the Phalanx so much.
After the Beirut barracks bombing we had to set up another perimeter. I don't know where it came from but we got a 40mm Bofors mounted on a trailer, (WWII vintage). We never got harassed at that check point again.
How was beirut? Hope you had a great time there 😁
You don’t want to be shoot by a 40mm
@@zzaronn i wouldnt want to get shot by any gun, especially any one designed against aircraft.
Aircraft have counter-measures against missiles. They don't have counter-measures against bullets. Also missiles are expensive as hell and are dependent on things like heat and chemical exhaust trails.
Well targeting-wise countermeasures could still work. Depending on the platform, the targeting system may really be the one "aiming".
Also keeping constant supply of missiles is a lot more expensive AND harder,
while more or less passive ammunition is a lot easier to transport in various configurations of packaging.
Reloading ammunition is also easier, it does not require special equipment and can be done by hand (though inertial/pre-loaded exoskeletons will make it as easy as drinking water),
missiles, depending on the size, may require separate logistics and machinery
Basically, Hezbollah/Hamas could bankrupt Israel by launching a sustained mortar/artillery attack. As each protocols costs $50, and each Israeli missile is like $50k.
@@demun6065 Well thats exactly what they are trying.
But Israel luckily wipes out their mortar/rocket positions in a matter of hours after they start firing.
@The Truth You obviously don't understand anything about econony.
I think the Egyptians in the 6-day war used the tactic of having a SAM umbrella that forced planes low into AA guns.
Yom Kippur war.
@Amadeo komnenus I learned they called it Zeus in Generation Kill mini series.
@@dl6519 Thanks
D L I was gonna correct that
@@colderwar No...the Russians design IADS for all altitude envelopes. SA6 for medium altitude, AA and IR missiles for low altitude. If you try to fly low to avoid radar u get hit with AAA and manpads. Look up Vietnam war, most of the losses were due to AAA as they cannot fly at medium alt due to SA 2.
Thing is, unlike sam’s, conventional cannon rounds truly are omni-purpose. Just as useful against most light ground targets as they are against air targets
Tell that to ADATS, which is basically a multi-role missile. Can even kill MBTs with some effectiveness...
AA guns aren’t obsolete. These are still great against Helicopters, huge drones and heavy drop ships (like a C-130). For supersonic jets and small missiles It would be better to use laser anti air weaponry. Also anti air guns would be improvised against infantry or light armor
The use guns against missiles all the time. Ciws
2K22 can shot down even small drones
mantis can shoot down mortar rounds, they are getting so fucking accurate its hard to believe
Lasers are still pretty new and more for shooting down nukes/large missiles. Id think missiles are best against fast jets. And bullets and cannons are good against helis or soft ground targets
Watch as your AA freaking dis-integrate that Infantry cover.
EVERY. SINGLE. MAJOR. ADVANCEMENT. in technology has been hailed as the end-all-be-all. TNT, battleships, tank’s, airplanes, nuclear weapons. And yet despite all the advancement in the last 150 years, every one of those systems is still in service in one form or another. The reason? Because they’re needed.
Today’s combat is so thickly multi-layered no one system can have a hope of winning the day or performing its task on its own. Look at AA missiles, sure they can cover 50km. Cool. So what happens when someone manages to sneak up within say 2 or 3km? AA gun. Sure a laser has zero travel time, but what happens when you lack the chemical fuels or cryogenics needed to make it work? AA gun. Need to take out light vehicles but no tanks or dedicated anti-vehicle weapons? AA gun.
Every time a new tech has attempted to supplant an older tech it just creates a vulnerability. AA guns are here to stay because they work too well and are too versatile to do away with.
Yah, it’s like someone trying to replace the AK platform with the AN platform, just because its new and better doesn’t mean you should replace the old guns immediately especially since it is vastly more complicated.
150 years ? More like 105, but you make a good point
Laser's worst enemy? cloudy or humid environment. That is why lasers arent deployed on a massive scale. They rely heavily on the conditions of the atmosphere.
Well, unless gm gets off their lazy asses and invents the fusion engine and high powered voip become a reality. Something in the 40 mega watt range preferably.
Plus, AA guns can chew fortifications in a matter of minutes. It can also demoralize enemy infantries easily just by hearing the loud thud AA makes when firing.
Anti aircraft guns can, in some circumstances, be considered *triple use.* With a sophisticated enough fire control system they can be used as point defence, the CIWS being the obvious example.
But it's now being scaled down to systems on tanks that shoot down (or at least destabilize enough to prevent a clean hit and penetration) incoming rounds from RPG's and so forth.
Such a system would also be very worrisome to the guy firing said RPG, and anything low flying as well.
The technology for active tank protection was being tested for a long time. Soviets in the 80s or earlier had few experimental tank mounted anti missile systems. The issues were mostly with cost and the danger to infrantry if the system was to be used. It is basicly a frag grenade exploding infront of the tank at that point.
Indeed.
You should see how small miniguns are getting. To the point of becoming small CIWS systems.
@@shepardpolska If there is no active protection system, and lets say, a tank has allied infantry nearby(which is normal), and an RPG hits the tank. Would the infantry be totally safe from frags 100% of the time? Hmm.. this sorta reminds me of what peopIe say about ERA. If you are near a tank, and the tank is hit, the ERA will kiII you. But if there is no ERA, infantry nearby will be safe. TOTALLY safe.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 The infrantry would be way more safer. For one, RPGs explode on contact with the armor, the fragments only go to the sides. An active protection detonates what is practicaly a big fragmentation warhead a few meters away from the tank. The active systems are made to create fragmentation while most HEAT warheads are not. Then there is the issue that if an RPG hits a tank, the enemy might kill your infrantry. If the tank has active protection, you have a much bigger chance that the infrantry will be harmed, and it is practicaly friendly fire. Air burst is more dangerous to infrantry then contact fuses.
And this is just what the soviets decided after testing them. The danger to infrantry was one of the official worries that closed the program
They're meant mostly for helicopters instead of planes.
I disagree, back when the Tunguska System (predecessor of the Panzir) was developed they chose to include the gun system because it offered faster engagement times against liw flying aircraft.
This was mid eighties though, when they fully expected to have to deal with aircraft like Tornados coming in really low with the MW-1 system.
Back then Hawgs where flying NIE as well.
Also missiles do have a minimum range, while cannons don't really have one, in the air defense role that is.
Edit: for Matt, guedd what Flak stands for?😉
Fliegerabwehrkanone= Anti-Aircraft defence cannon/Cannon for defending against aircraft 😉 what we also know as Anti-Aircraft Artillery.😉
The bigger autocannon AAA like the 35-40mm still have that shrapnel capability, it's only the smaller 20mm and 30mm or lower that don't have it.
Only a handful of countries have jets. Even less have helicopters. And the likelihood of a country with current gen fighters engaging another is almost 0.
However guns are still useful. If a plane gets close enough, be it jet or propeller powered, a gun could engage quickly. The plane cant detect artillery until its already being hit.
Well disagree, there are lot of low attack planes, even modern once use cannons for strafing. So AA can make it hard for the pilot
Maybe this is because the majority of rotor wings are more likely to be low-altitude compared to jets
AA guns keep the planes high enough to be engaged by missiles. None of these weapons systems work in a vacuum.
as long as it has proximity fuse, a very good tracking system, it will never get obsolete.
Alien laughing noises*
M_117 - Integrated shadow lobster *Laughs in Ork Dakka*
Quote Brit Officer WW2 "We wondered how effective smaller German AA guns were, a truck drive on to the road within seconds it was aflame we wondered no more."
Dakka is never obsolete...just ask Ma Deuce.
Kord and KPV-14.5 Would like to know the location of your cover
If you have ask if there's enough dakka, you don't have enough dakka
Ma Deuce was originally made to shoot down planes... and carve up light vehicles.
@@trevynlane8094 yeah tons of aircraft in 1900s
@@Dread_Pirate_Homesteader the western front of WW1 had massive air battles above the trenches.
They may be primitve bi-planes but they were aircraft nonetheless.
i remember watching a video of insurgents almost killing a high ranking soldier by dropping a hand grenade on him from a cheap quad rotor drone so it seems like a viable threat
Although it is obviously better than losing a high ranking Officer, it would be overkill and otherwise a waste of money to shoot down drones with AA guns. 5 30mm rounds(or less) costs more than the quad drown that it is shooting down. If drones are a frequent threat, than something like Tungsten buckshot or an MG would be a better suit.
@@MPdude237 well he did say if the drones were to attack in swarms still probably not practical though
@@MPdude237 well very hard to hit a drone with a MG, shotguns don't have range. Yes AA is expensive but if you have a $1000 drone dropping a small mortar granate on your key assets, it is worth it.
@@jantschierschky3461 - thats a job for a 50 cal.
@@2157AF trust me very hard to hit drone with a MG, unless just hovering. No need a .50. We exercised AA with MG3 against RC planes, using AA sights. Drones are even more mobile. There is a reason why people use shotgun for duck hunting.
When playing project reality coop
The scariest thing you will saw is ZSU-23-4 Shilka
That shit is scary
Reminds me of my old Commodore-64 days playing Gunship. Yup, that caused me to remake many profiles.
If you played Gunship and did the Western Europe missions then the ZSU -30 - 2 was the bad boy.
Is Project Reality still alive?
Same when you play arma CWA where meeting enemy shilka=you are in very bad situations
It's not much different in Arma 3 when you run around as Infantrist, on the other hand if you are in a Jet and know there is one, you can usually knock them out pretty safely.
I love how one video can convince me that a certain channel is of solid quality
Great video!
no matter how cheap the missile, it'll always be more then a rack of AA rounds
AA artillery commonly plays the role of close infantry support. You dont really need MBT all around for taking out sniper nests if you has AA gun available. It is especially useful in the mountain area were you can not even bring MBT everywhere.
This is just not true. "Commonly"? Not even close.
Yes, we've seen the Coviets create a variant of the Shilka the so-called "Afghan" variant, because the other armoured vehicles couldn't get the gun elevation to fire on the Mujahedeen in the mountains.
But lets be real, this is not common usage, and Russia is just throwing whatever it has in inventory at Ukraine.
Its also not Artillery. The Shilka fires a 23mm round, hardly artillery.
We haven't really seen AAA since WW2 with the 88mm Flak cannon. These days, its either Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) or C-RAM style anti air guns.
@@PBMS123 Since AFV quite often adapts former AA guns, we technically have seen AAA a lot since ww2.
@@PBMS123Really forgetting how the NVA shot a lot of our F-105s, A-4Es, and even F-4s with the AZP S-60?
@@robertoroberto9798But no competent military is using an aa gun in place of the main Battle tank. And if you just need a smaller tank make or procure a light tank
*Hears a sewing machine in operation*
Other humans: meh, just a mechanical sewing machine.
Me: Ahhhh, the glorious ZSU 23-4 in action.
For a weapon system that's been obsolete for half a century, most nations go out of their way to avoid or shoot on sight any they find.
This is a question I’ve been wondering for quite some time now. Can’t wait to watch!
AA guns and canons will ALWAYS have a place in the military.
You can't EMP or disable a Shell, only block em.
At the end of the day, it's good ol' dakka that saves ya hide xD
1:40 to answer it as shortly as I can, f4 phantom during the Vietnam war taught a lot, so we are DEFINETLY are going to use this in the near future just as a last resort weapon if everything else fails
Royal Navy went to the Falklands with missiles. I wonder why there was a refit of ships afterwards with Phalanx CIWS. Is the answer on the bottom of the sea?
@@ahorsewithnoname643 Well, CIWS was only introduced into the USN two years earlier. The Falklands War occurred at a time of transition for both attackers and defenders. The older destroyers of the RN were designed for long range defense against Soviet nuclear bombers. The RN was in the process of upgrading both radars and defensive weapons. They can't be faulted for either the change of weapons, nor that it takes times to refit the fleet.
Honestly, the whole F4 thing is an urban legend at best. Very few kills were actually recorded with the guns; they were added for ground support and happened to be added at the same time as multiple avionics/weapon upgrades that played a much larger role in air to air combat. Want more proof? Gunless Navy F4s had a better kill/loss ratio than the Air Force F4s.
Makes me think of the dawn of the missile era in aviation. “They don’t need a gun because the missiles will handle every problem.” What was the funny looking thing that was mounted under the F-4 shortly after? A gun.
Love the channel Matt!!
And it got a whopping 6 kills out of over a hundred missile kills by USAF F-4s during Vietnam, negatively impacted flight performance and forced the use of a smaller radar. Meanwhile the Navy never adopted internal guns. Hmmmm.
Also, the F-4 was a naval interceptor and it definitely did not need a gun because you want the interceptor to meet the attacker and fire a missile at range. You won't have the time for the getting into gun position nonsense or else the carrier you're supposed to protect will eat a few anti-ship missiles.
Titanium Rain: Thanks for the info! Learn something new everyday. Didn’t think the gun really helped too much but with the twisting and turning of dog fights over land and the failure of early missiles to track and detonate did seem to make a case for guns. I do agree that intercepts need to happen a long way out from a TF for best protection. Guns are most always a good thing to have. AA guns are no exception.
Titanium Rain if there wasn’t a point in using guns anymore the best fighter jets in the world wouldn’t have em
@@apiece_ And exactly how does that counter anything I have said?
you need both (missiles, guns and radars) as part of an integrated air defense system with multiply layers of engagement
And Mk I Eyeball and NVG. There will be a time when warfare is reduced to back to basics.
No matter how a war starts, it always end up with two guys trying to bash the other's head in with a brick.
There is value in low tech as long as it's available.
I think not. They might need to adjust caliber for drones but drones are the new threat.
Totally agree anti aircraft artillery when placed on a highly mobile platform can be a major force multiplier on the ground and air it wont all go to missiles like you say cost!! That Rhinemettal cannon just looks awesome
As a former AD officer I’ve got to say you have most of it right, IMO. I really appreciated you even got the logistics point in there which internet geniuses in the comment section often ignore. Also drone threats are going to challenge current missiles. You are looking forward. But also, guns can now shoot missiles, and I think multiple warhead (think MIRV style) ATGMs are going to soon be a thing. Going to need to reach out and touch them before they separate.
The level you are missing is that much of the debate gets decided by politics in the US Army. Both due to intra service competition as well as inter service competition. Also, the procurement system is rigged against AD just like it is CAS.
Army Generals don’t want to spend money or use logistics assets on something they want the Air Force to deal with. It’s even worse, traditionally (unless things have changed) AD gets mostly the unwanted leftovers of the Academy along with the Chemical Corps (Some excellent officers choose it, but then they fill the slots with the remains) Also, the Air Force doesn’t want the “idiot ground pounders” shooting anything in the sky because it might be them. AD weapon systems rarely make it to the troops unless they are really cheap and evolutionary. They nearly killed Stinger in Congress by circular firing squad. First they say it’s too complex for the troops, then, they gave us the lowest scoring recruits out of spite!
If you ask me, we would be better off if all the dedicated AD systems were Air Force and all the CAS systems (A-10, etc) were Army. Look at how they always want to dump the A-10.
The Army generals aren’t afraid of losing soldiers to air attack, and the Air Force doesn’t worry about failure to provide CAS. Any incidents of failure are going to simply be blamed on the other service or lack of funding (which if granted will then be redirected towards the main missions of those services).
Keep up the cool vids!
Im going to pretend i have a attencion span long enough to read a small novel and say "I agree 100%!"
@@tuke3541 😂. I always say my opinion is free, but if you want it concise and well written that will cost you.
An interesting point. Maybe the US Army is so dismissive towards AD because their military doctrine relies on air superiority? Soviets, on the contrary, always treated AD very seriously. As officers who served in AD used to say, "We ain't flying and neither will you". So the AD command of Ground Forces has it all: AA guns for
@@alexrogov7186 Absolutely. The US Army very much has gotten used to the Supremacy of the US Air Force. Similarly, everyone else plans on it as well. Of course, all good things must come to an end.
The fact that some of the newer systems can shoot down things as small as a mortar makes them more useful since they can protect an area from artillery as well.
4:31 Yes, missiles are very logistics, and maintenance intensive to upkeep. They are also much more difficult (also more expensive) to properly train personnel on. Well, at least when compared to conventional gun systems *(which is pretty much, what EVERY amateur missile proponent overlooks every time).* It's primarily, because missiles have very expensive, and sophisticated electronics, in their sensors, and flight computer. It also kinda explains why a majority of missiles are kept inside boxes/containers......doing this apparently helps prevents these sensitive electronics from being damaged *(or messed up in some way)* by the outside environment.
Hey Matsimus, so I saw this and I noticed you made a very good point about how most AAA is radar guided nowadays. This makes me wonder: how would this help against something with SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) armaments? These types of weapons lock onto enemy radar signatures and then destroy those radars (and ideally the weapons system connected to it). Do you think you could do a video on SEAD weapons, how they’re employed, and how to counter them?
Additionally, I’m totally in agreement with you on the premise that conventional AAA isn’t going anywhere because there are a couple points with missile based air defenses that I think were overlooked here: stealth and countermeasures. While even radar based AAA would have trouble with stealth aircraft, there’s not exactly any kind of countermeasures for good old fashioned flak fire. Missiles in addition to their failure ratings can be thrown off by chaff and flares (standard loadouts for most modern aircraft) at least long enough to get out of range of a second shot. Just a little tidbit I figured I’d add on. Always love watching your stuff!
Another reason why a shotgun isn't going anywhere, "PULL"
Oh shit.
No, theyre more important than ever. Its partly due to near-peers like Russia and China still maintaining an effective air fleet, but its also due to the proliferation of low-cost, easy-to-use unmanned aerial systems. Air defense(in this case more specifically SHORADs) remains a vital and integral part of any military planner's arsenal.
China and Russia have lots of aircraft but not much force projection ability.
China and Russia are not the aggressors. > US-UK-IS
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165 yes they are. Look at how China acts towards Taiwan and Tibet. Look how Russia acted in Crimea and Ukraine.
@@AutismIsUnstoppable
No they are not. US and it's close Al'lies are behind the frictions, tensions and chaos throughout the World.
Nature of the hegemon Beast.
@@AutismIsUnstoppable China is rapidly expanding their blue water navy and air capabilities, in 20 years they will be a global military power
With the rising use of massed drone attacks that missiles are just wasted on and don't have the capacity to tale down, I thinl guns will see a resurgance if anything.
@APCOPILOT No one would nuke the atmosphere over their own country to destroy a drone swarm. Also, those things are becomming more and more autonomous. So jamming won't work either.
@APCOPILOT the incident at Gatwick airport proves that jamming a drone isn't as easy as people think
@APCOPILOT The problem is to detect the drones as well. They are small and nimble enough to get so close as to sneak in undetected if needed. The more they are developed the harder they will be to counter.
though i can imagine small auto turrets will be a future development. You only need like a 5.56mm round in a computer aimed system locking on and firing within a 200m range and watch them fall out of the sky fast.
It will be interesting to see how advanced anti-aircraft guns perform in actual combat against drones, cruse missiles, helicopters and low flying aircraft.
With how fun the M16 is in Men Of War Assault Squad 2, I'd be very interested to see the Tunguska vs infantry
I could say the only way AAA becomes obsolete is the perfection of directed energy weapons. Directed energy weapons have the downside of requiring massive amounts of power but AAA requires lots of AMMO and would be no different than a power supply.
And there's the range limitation.
Think with energy weapons you have few issues still. Power is the main one. Weather another. Those videos with lasers being used shows targets are often exposed number of seconds before destruction. So you need extremely good targeting
@@jantschierschky3461 I do not disagree with you that Energy weapons have a long way to go because of thier flaws. but if they are perfected i can see them out classing AAA, as to targeting, because the weapon is firing at the speed of light there is no need to lead the target like AAA. so holding on to a target would be the same as aiming and that would be done with computers. as to weather, depends on the light specrum, IR and microwave are better in adverse weather... but AAA is here to stay until the energy problems are solved
@@gijoe41688 the issue is still energy, unless you have mobile fusion reactor, or capacitor than can store 100s and of megawatts. Also there is a recharge gap. So it may happen in the future not sure in my lifetime so
@APCOPILOT agreed but the same can be said of any radar guided AAA
Could you do a video on drone swarming technology? It's something that I think many would like. It's a very simple idea, but very complex in both theory and practice. You have a talent of presenting a large amount of information in a concise & easy to understand manner.
Another point to keep in mind is that the great majority of anti-aircraft system deployments are to around fixed positions to be protected, like urban areas and bases, even small forward bases. Many are also deployed on mobile systems to protect convoys of vehicles on the move. Rarely is an anti-aircraft system deployed with troops on the move at the front of the battlefield.
Finally someone that's speaking my language. I think we've overengineered our anti-aircraft defenses these days. We could do a lot with Flak guns these days.
1:40 as a sci fi nerd I can tell you lasers won't replace all CIWS even if we tried their actually very simple but horrifying solutions to counter lasers such as simply rolling, putting ultra white paint, ablative metal, etc their so many ways
Guns should be part of a layered system of AA defense. In the US it should be THAAD then Patriot, then something similar to the old Hawk batteries then Stingers and mobile AA guns.
Guns are especially important when dealing with drones, helicopters and can also be useful in hitting infantry in the open or even ripping apart APCs/IFVs.
A 35mm chain gun will rip open most infantry vehicles quite easily.
I still am a huge fan of how the Italians put a 76mm rapid fire gun on a tank chassis. Gave it radar and a high angle mounting.. That would be an ideal anti drone weapon now a days.
as for the US a new 50mm bushmaster seems to be promising. There was even a study to develop a guided round for it. For the smallest and cheapest targets just add laser.
@@solarissv777 having a round that can air burst and put out sufficient shrapnel is really important. The 20, 25 and 30s really don't have the ability.
@@admiraltiberius1989 well, alternatively, something similar to German AHEAD can be done: ditch almost all the explosives, leave gust enough to destroy the round itself, and fill the empty space with steel/tungsten buckshot. Upon the round destruction said buckshot will be dispersed with centrifugal force of the spinning round, thus one can get more shrapnel for a smaller round.
Short answer: No
Long answer:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Nooooooooooodakakakkakakakakaaooooooo
I agree with you. That is why, in the event of conflict, aircraft are very careful around the ZSU-23 Shilka. Radar on guns share the same vulnerabilities as radar in missile systems. ECM can ruin your day.
ECM, especially noise jamming, simply wouldn't do anything to close-range guns. By virtue of thier in-visual range engagement profile, most modern radars will burn through most ECM once the aircraft gets in range. Of course, most ECM systems are highly classified, probably due to the fact that they rely on technical deception. Their benefits would quickly fall apart of the enemy knew the tricks that the ECM was pulling.
You can also just shoot the guns at them any way. ECM can't block the trigger
@@synapsisflame9721 Tracking in manual mode isn't at all accurate
@@Darkstar198 Watts vs watts. Who has more. Also how frequency agile are both
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer doesn't have to be the psychological effect of a wall of tracers coming at the a plane usually make the pilot panic.
A 40mm Bofors could stop a lot of tracked IFV's, much less anything that flies.
Difference is whether you need to score a direct hit or if proximity shrapnel is enough to get effect.
@@johanmetreus1268 True. An AA gun probably isn't carrying AP ammo. Still, if the shell actually hits before it pops, it could knock out most vehicles that aren't real tanks. A single 40mm Bofors round is supposed to be the rough equivalent of 5 hand grenades.
@@Elthenar "A single 40mm Bofors round is supposed to be the rough equivalent of 5 hand grenades"
Not very likely due to simple physics, as a40 mm shell is barely the same weight as a single hand grenade.
"An AA gun probably isn't carrying AP ammo. Still, if the shell actually hits before it pops, it could knock out most vehicles that aren't real tanks"
Most AA-guns since WWII have a small supply of AT-rounds just in case, but the main point here isn't a direct hit, as that will be the end of any aircraft. Where the armour makes a difference is against small calibre fire and shrapnel, preventing a near hit from taking the aircraft or vehicle out.
@@johanmetreus1268 What I said about the Bofors is a direct quote from Vietnam after action reports. They had M42 Dusters but all they normally did with them is sweep the forest. Apparently it was highly effective.
Remember that a hand grenade is mostly metal. A Bofors round has a much higher amount of explosive per ounce than a grenade.
A big YES to AA guns. With modern radar and digital guidance, they are more cost-effective than missiles. $20,000 per Iron Dome missile? Whot!
Still needed. If a war goes on for some time time then "older" technology will come into play. Ships have guns as last line of defence so why not on land? Falklands conflict had soldiers on deck firing rifles at incoming missile when radar lock was lost on Exocet that was incoming. Watched this on seconds from disaster documentary
The real killer in the Falklands was bombs. Exocet had 2 kills. The rest of the ships were hit by bombs.
Yes just re watched seconds from disaster on HMS Coventry sinking.Deck gun and rifles where fired at jet flying in to drop bombs. HMS Broad Sword and Coventry lost radar lock on Argentine jets because of an error in manoeuvres in the stress of battle.
@@vincitveritas3872
If a battleship was there...big guy wouldn't even feel...
I would say no, as a helicopter pilot or a soldier on the ground the last thing I would wanna run across is a ZSU-23 (or anything along those lines) lmao
Quite a bunch of footage of Austrian Army Oerlikon 35mm ZFLAK 85 on target practice somewhere abroad. Greetings from Austria.
Honestly I was unfamiliar with the arguments for and against the removal of AA artillery. I had just assumed it was being phased out regardless. You brought up many points I had yet to consider and have given me quite a bit to think about. Won’t say you’ve entirely convinced me to one side but you definitely moved the needle for me and I found the arguments fascinating all the same. Great vid hope to see many more like it.
Against jets, yes triple-A guns mean nothing. But, against low-and-slow or helos and drones they still have a place.
9:20 who else thought for a second that they will shoot the Birds flying in the background?
No
Ah, so that's why the Russian AA system has a radar, missiles and auto-cannons in one package.
There was a scene in "Generation Kill" where an attack helicopter destroys an old AA auto-cannon tank (ZSU) from close range.
An aspect uncovered: AAA was often used in ground combat starting in WWII. Remember guns up to 88mm were highly useful against ground targets, let alone all sorts of machine cannons. And that stayed through most major conflicts of my lifetime like the Falkland War (Goose Green for example) through the Balkan Wars to this day when ZSU-23s are engaged in urban warfare in Syria. Conventional FLAK is just versatile.
Yup. I think the newer systems can be programmed to airbrush behind cover as well. If not they should.
Norwegian armour piercing 12,7 mm amo penetrates a Hind at 1000 m. 40 mm Bofors amo penetrates any now existing aircraft. So whomever said that is wrong.
Absolutely, 20mm will almost surely pull them out of the sky let alone 35 and 40. 30 avnger (a-10) defeat top tank armour. Who ever said that stupid sjit needs a reality check
Yes and it is useful against drones...
Last time I checked, only packing missiles is really nice, until you need to deal with nearby enemies
Would that time be the Vietnam War?
aka F-4 vs MIG-19
Maldus Alver
If that’s the example you want, then sure
Last time I checked, there has been some improvements in missile technology over the past 60 years.
@@hailexiao2770 and in missile defences and countermeasures...
Missiles are great till you’re in a large scale war and realise how much everything costs when you need to fight for more than a couple weeks of large scale battles...
If any AAA or SPAAG is engaging air targets that means the SAM systems or any/all other missile capable anti air systems in the network have failed. Plus you can have AAA near the front lines defend itself from infantry and LAV's. SAM systems wouldnt and arent capable of defending themselves close up to ground forces.
When paratroopers are jumping out of aircraft they can be really handy.
@@bighands69 shooting paratroopers while in air is kinda a war crime.
@@elkapro6534
The war crime only applies if it is an emergency parachute jump it does not apply if the paratroopers are making an insertion as in attacking.
And the aircraft they are jumping out of is fair game as well.
If AAA and SPAAG are engaging aircraft it means your layered missile defence has worked.
The SAM forced American aircraft down low into the shilkas kill envelope in vietnam.
A proper layered air defence network should have both long range missiles and short range guns.
To rule both high and low.
We need high tech, medium tech, and low tech. Because it takes years to develop a high technology in a war you fight with what you have at the time.
Yeah even the M2 Browning .50 cal is hella old and still is a reliable gun.
Yep, and that high tech weapon is great on paper but if history tells us anything, once people work out a way to deal with it, you can’t modify it in a hurry to deal with new threats...
Whereas our old tech, well there isn’t many ways to stop a bullet or artillery shell other than to hide behind or potentially under something...
Wait some people honestly believe DAKA is obsolete!?!??!
.....and the red colour...paint it red....its gona go faster....
Me an Ace Combat Player: I fear no missile... But that thing...
ZSU-23-4
Me: It scares me!
The Tunguska from Russia is worse
13:20 is that my bae, I see? Shilka, the only lawn ornament I've ever wanted (not sure how my neighbors would feel about it, though). Something about the look of that thing I just love.
I don't think AAA guns are (or should) go anywhere. Even as expensive as they can get, I think they are still likely much more cost effective for close range than missile system. Overlapping specialized systems with varying ranges just seems much better for any military that can afford it, rather than trying to find a "one size fits all" AAA solution.
It's like the blade and hand to hand in infantry fighting. You might not use it much but you still want them in certain circumstances.
8:47 Lol. Just, because missiles are getting cheaper, it doesn't mean that the same thing can't apply for anti aircraft guns (not to mention the fact that both types of weapon systems can evolve at the same pace). One of the reasons weapons (of any type) get cheaper is, because they get produced in vast quantities. The more stuff, the less expensive it is.
You could apply this same thing to AA gun shells, and they will still be magnitudes less expensive than missiles. Even if the missiles get overproduced in large quantities.
Back in the 90s the German Airforce tried to change from AA guns to pure missile defence for airfields short-range defence. Bad idea. Consistently the missile locations were lost to commando attacks (simulated) and thus holes appeared in the protective screen. The problem was not solved during my active time but I remember discussions about adding emplacements for automated guns...
Basically, as long as there are targets to fire at, at short range, the AA-Gun will have significant value.
Wow! Amazing presentation. I’ve never thought about it that way. Drones definitely are worrisome.
These anti aircraft tanks would make a good support tank for the troops .
just read an article where the US army developed a system where they can shoot down cruise missiles with a howitzer... which is pretty badass.
Anyhow seeing by what is going on in Syria which actually has fairly advanced air defense systems that still get overwhelm on regular basis. All these systems have limitations and if you know the limitation like it an only track x projectiles and you shoot x+2 or something any future air war with modern militaryies will be fairly short.
I totally agree thu, anti-aircraft guns are much better solution for the new drone/low velocity threat.
Using a howitzer to lounch an AA round is not a bad idea. Standard long range 155 howitzer round could reach targets flying higher than 10km (30k ft) as far as 30km+ (20 miles) away. Max. Altitude for the projectile is 20km+ (60,000ft+).
@@rikulappi9664 that is awesome info but they shot a regular high velocity 155 round. It is really the fact that they could track and timing it right thats impressive.
@@Crazylalalalala My father was trained in using flak 88 in the early 60's. The two WW2 88 Flaks under his command were able to fire two rounds in a live fire exercise close enough to the target towed by a jet airplane and not only tear the target to pieces but also to hit and cut the wire between the towing jet and the target. If the Germans did create such technology over 70 years ago the US is likely to do much better today.
@@rikulappi9664 That is pretty impressive.
Riku Lappi and that is why Ukraine should have closed down the airspace over Donbas, or any other conflict involving heavy artillery
Matsimus, great content as always. But, we have to look at AA systems from a layered system. Its not an either or question.
Take into consideration that the cost of sat-communication feeding Intel to the AA system, it has its place from a national security standpoint. It's 1/10 the cost of a missile and anyone who can turn a wrench on a volkswagen can support it. 👍🏿
I think it falls in the same vane as when the US tried to make a multi role fighter without a cannon or gun. I think we will still need the guns they are just becoming less used but may still be necessary in some cases
Tricked05 Same, it was like this on the f4 phantom
Not really there has been very few gun kills since veitnam even during Iraqi when everyone ran out of missiles they ran away
Kameron Jones
Yes but do remember he said multirole. An attacker needs guns
@@randomuser5443 it is really dangerous to do strafing runs against any country with manpads or heavy mg/AA even the a10 preferred to bombs and maverick missiles because they took alot of damage during strafing runs
@@kameronjones7139 What weapons are used depends on the target and situation.
In the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars the guns were used quite often when troops were in contact and were to close for other weapons to be used.
And that was despite a latent threat of those low level threats you mentioned. (HMGs and MANPADS)
Which conflicts are you speaking off?
The problem with most post-Vietnam Wars and conflicts with US involvement did have a favourable situation for the US all the way from the strategic level down to tactical, which allowed the US and allied forces to disengage if necessary.
The Iran-Iraq war, a conflict among peers which lasted eight years and ended abiut two years before the Gulf War did produce several gun kills.
It's better to have guns and not use them than to need them and not have them.
Missiles can fail to hit as the most recent US kill has shown, both Niner-X Sidewinders failed to hit and a third shot with the AMRAAM was needed.
And that was because the enemy aircraft was a Fitter that tried to run. Which gave the Superbugthe chance for that AMRAAM shot.
Imagine that being a Fulcrum that tries to fight it out instead of running.
The provlem with most of the "guns are a thing of the past"-advocates, is that you always assume perfect conditions and total tactical freedom to be available to you.
Remember, the enemy get's a vote too.
The one key thing the Falklands War taught us is that AA guns and other projectile weapons are a vital part of a combined defence for ground, air and land forces. The example of the German '88 flak cannon showed how a weapon can be re-tasked effectively.
Well done, well thought out video.
Remember the Iranian Small Drones "IED's" that Massed on that Saudi Oil Refinery not too long ago.
Exactly my thought, drones are cheaper to take out with AA guns.
@@Holuunderbeere
So if you are all so smart did the Iranians then take over the fields?
@@bighands69? You're missing the point here mate
@@bighands69 what a stupid reply.
They would still be effective against CAS aircraft, undoubtedly.
depends on range. Even an A-10 can’t survive a barrage of 23-35mm shells
Imo having big guns that can spew out a huge rate of fire is never a bad idea
AA guns will never be obsolete in warfare as long as they can turn fast enough to hit the target they can easily take down a plane just dont use manually aimed guns
The thermal or FLIR clip where you can see the ammunition explosion and the pieces of shrapnel is awesome. You dont ever get to see artillery from that perspective! 👍🏼🤙🏼✊🏼✌🏼🤪🐎🪑🤮🌳🚪
No, I know this because Wargame: Red Dragon
They work well for bringing down that pesky helo.
a 5.56mm bullet can destroy an ATGM with a single hit
an ATGM travels subsonicly and you have more than 5 sec to engage on a range of 100-2000meters
imagine MBTs equiped with ciws systems to deal with such threats in open areas
a 5.56mm gatling gun can fire fast enough to almost guarantee the missile kill
this 5.56mm gun will also be very useful as a main machinegun against infantry
the main problem is the cost of the little ciws
considering mass production it could be possible to equip these on mbts costing 3+million$
Iron First will work better:
ua-cam.com/video/I0ymxZruvvI/v-deo.html
APS system...
You are absolutely right about missiles. Just look at the current shortage on chips and semiconductors in the market due to the pandemic. Now imagine that a war is breaking out with supply chains ruptured - where do you get on the long run sufficient components for complex technologies like missiles?
Those Oerlikons look so darn menacing. Amazing stuff from Rheinmetall, as per usual!
AA guns? I think you mean anti infantry overkill.
me looking at china still having hand cranked aa guns: get with the time
They still hand-cranking their AA guns?
@@m4albino201 yeah some of them are hand cranked. Usually the 40mm and 57mm are hand cranked. The zsu 23 are electric, but they still require a well trained crew.
There is an old propanda video 4 years ago. Still is valid in my opinion considering they always put it in their large parades.
allen liu trust me China has or is well on their way to getting more advanced systems besides a bullet is still a bullet
Worked over the skies of Hanoi
so let me show you my point
who wins
an automated system or a manual system?
like would you rather have a system that can do what a well trained gun crew can do and mass produce it or would you rather have an anti air system that requires the training of a well trained crew to operate
like I would rather not go through months of training to use an anti aircraft gun that can't even aim at a plane flying directly over at the speed of mach 1-2
When there's a game of smart weapons vs countermeasures, nothing beats a dumb ol' piece of metal being shot at hundreds of miles an hour in a big curtain. Works on infantry too!
Also one of the important things about Missile AAs and Gun AA is that the AA guns can fight against enemy infantry or unarmored transport when shows up out of nowhere. They can shower them with that 20/35 mm ammo with great rate of fire! While the missile AAs can leave the place or fight with HMGs at best!
Short answer: No. Long answer: also no.