Are gepards good for AA or just a meam?sound:https://files.catbox.moe/lduzm9.mp4
>>62536964Yes, they are low cost, efficient, and everything. The west fell for sophisticated air defense missile meme, forgetting what if thirdies just spam cheap cruise missiles at you to overwhelm your system?
>>62536964They're very cost effective, Ukraine just doesn't have enough of them. Their only real downside is that they take a long time to refill the belts with ammo
>>62537033>what if thirdies just spam cheap cruise missilesthey cant afford to spam
>>62537473Well they fucking are. For example, they overwhelmed the Iron Dome system in Israel simply by spamming rockets. These systems work until they don't work. In another example in Ukraine, Russia (who is King of the Thirdies btw) spam cruise missiles, Shahed, Iskanders, all at once, and some will get through. Ukraine has a layered defense system, where they have everything from guys running around technicals armed with 50 cals, to gepards, to manpads, to F-16s, and Patriot and NASAM air defense systems. They want as much of the cheap shit shot down by similarily cheap ammunition.Russia in contrast has NO LAYERED DEFENSE SYSTEM AT ALL. They have a sophisticated missile defense system and that seems to be it. It's why so many high preceision Ukrainian UAVs are getting through.So Taiwan better invest in their own SPAAG systems if they aren't already.
>>62537559nice fagfic dipshit
>>62537559A random bottle rocket making it through to blow up an empty park is not a success on the sand nigger end.
>>62537033>The west fell for sophisticated air defense missile memeExcept they didn't. Sophisticated air defense was an actually answer to what NATO would have had gone up against during the Cold War but with the SU gone and technology being a lot better then it has been since the 90's, new threats have emerged so will our answers to those threats. Weapon systems like the gepard will probably make a come back until mass production of lasers are readily available and reliable
>>62537033SHORAD is just another layer of air defense you dumb black gorilla nigger. Just because it found utility again doesnt mean other forms of GBAD suddenly become obsolete. Are Gepards going to intercept Iskanders?
>>62537559>For example, they overwhelmed the Iron Dome system in Israel simply by spamming rockets>use up 10x as many rockets to achieve the same effectsounds like it worked just fine
>>62537572Stop flirting with men.
>>62536964AAA has relatively short ranges. SPAAG doubly so. That makes it extremely vulnerable to First-World SEAD. However, the way that Ukraine is using them--far in the rear, where Russia's almost-nonexistent Wild Weasel capabilities are unlikely to find them as long as they are halfway smart about it--they're relatively safe and well-positioned to deal with some of the cruise missile spam that Russia keeps throwing at civilian infrastructure. I have a sneaking suspicion that Russia makes it easier by sending lots of attacks on roughly the same course every time, rather than using varying routes driven by intel.tl;dr they're good for the exact role that Ukraine is using them for, and questionable for anything else, especially if used against a competent SEAD capability.
>>62536964>meamsaaaaar
Good SPAAGs and CRAM pretty much renders cheap drone spam ineffective, if you start improving the drones with counter-measures they lose their cost effectiveness.
>>62537774Not every jokey spelling you read is posted by Indians, you dimwit.
>>62537559>russia has a sophisticated missile defense systemThey do?May we see it?
They are good but they aren't ideal.Gepards were designed to defend against helicopters/low flying aircraft, mostly at the frontline with a mechanised unit.They don't have proximity fused ammunition and their radars are relatively old so they aren't very effective against small drones.Iirc we have seen a lancet interception, but the fact they don't seem to be used like this suggests it isn't very reliable.They can shoot Down shaheds pretty effectively, but so can a ZSU-23-2 on the back of a pickup truck.For the purpose of air defense over a large area the truck is a lot more road mobile.We see Gepards being transported around on tank transporters a lot presumably to save the operational life of the vehicle.IMO a vehicle with more modern radar and perhaps longer effective range gun could be very useful to protect high value targets like SAMs, artillery, mechanised formations ect from longer range attack drones and perhaps even reconnaissance drones too.This is important to create relative zones of invulnerability for maneuver and even deny observation too.This isn't however what the gepard was designed to do and it's a bit too out of date for it.Nevertheless still useful to have.Wish that NATO partners would take CUAS for Ukraine a bit more seriously, so far vampire and EW systems is about all they have sent.
>>62538920>but so can a ZU-23-2(without the S) on the back of a pickup truckyeah ivan and his firing solution brain is definetly as effective as the gepard with all its systems
>>62537033>cheap cruise missilesDoesn't exist
>>62538920>They can shoot Down shaheds pretty effectively, but so can a ZSU-23-2 on the back of a pickup truckThey can also shoot down cruise missiles
>>62538948It's not that difficult to hit a 200km/h drone.
>>62538987Yeah if it was easy Russia wouldn't lose 7th ammo depo in 30 days to drones
>>62538985They can only shoot down cruise missiles if the cruise missile passes within 4km of the AAA, and unlike Shaheds, cruise missiles are too fast for you to be able to travel to the right place for an interception.So basically only useful for fixed point defense in the anti cruise missile role.
>>62539012Which, considering moskals only hit kindergartens and maternity hospitals, is an entirely approachable goal.
>>62539003Russia struggles to intercept drones because they are enormous and have many sites to defend.For Russia to defend effectively they would require a good early warning system and very mobile defenses that could travel out to intercept raids where they are, ideally airborne like aircraft or helicopters.Russia has no particular shortage of AAA.It's just that short range point defenses are easily overwhelmed when you have to defend thousands of individual sites.
>>62539025There are very many more hospitals and kindergartens than there are Gepards in Ukraine.
>>62537559Imagine the state of your MIC if the absolute best thing your shills can say is "UAVs can freely pick off our oil depots, but if the enemy sent missiles, we could probably defend against them (unless it's Storm Shadow, which doesn't count)"
>>62538920>They don't have proximity fused ammunition and their radars are relatively old so they aren't very effective against small drones.Gepard can fire AHEAD ammo, anon
>>62539052gepard would need to be modified to be able to program ahead
>>62539031>Russia struggles to intercept drones because they are enormous and have many sites to defend.This logic would imply that most important sites like active airfields and largest ammo arsenals would be defended, since they are most likely targets to be hit. But there's a problem, Russia can't defend their most prized sites that were guaranteed to hit. Which basically completely blows up theory of "they can defend, it's just too many sites to defend"
>>62538978>Doesn't existWhat is the difference between a cruise missile and a jet-powered drone?
>>62539107Speed and maneuverability, I s'pose.
>>62539085No, because if you have to defend many sites, then you have to spread out your defenses, which makes it easier to overwhelm the defenses in any particular place.If you heavily defend certain sites, then your enemy will just attack in other places with very high efficiency, see Ukrainian attacks on oil refineries for example.This is the problem with relying on point defense at the strategic level, it's very bad for the economy of force.
>>62539125So Russia neither defends low priority sites like oil depos and refineries NOR high strategic sites like airfields.If it was easy to shoot down drones they'd pull out 10-20 Zu-23 per airfield to at least defend those. But they can't l, because it's not actually easy to defend
>>62539253I still theorize they have all their AA near military factories
>>62539253>NOR high strategic sites like airfields.They do have SAMs at airfields, they're just not very effective.
