>the year of our Lord 2026>Nobody has brought back basic ww2 flak despite it being optimal against drone and cruise missileOne 88cm flak/double barrel 20mm attached to a radar and manned with a few low cost manpads to complete the whole will give you more worth in shorad than meme energy weapons and costly balistic missile interceptors.We ve seen you can kill drones with infatryman rifle and soviet manpads shootdown Cruise missiles too.
>>650092671) white people are in the process of inventing laser point defense so there's no point in investing more money in flak 2) we already have modern AA (picrel)3) static AD is very much obsolete and subject to SEAD, just like static artillery is (picrel) granted modern systems can fire at 4km max where 88 could potentially fire at 10Km but for small drones fire rate is much more important than range, otherwise you need guided munitions
>>65009267Nobody's brought back WW2 Flak because nobody's brought back massive swarms of bombers flying slowly in formation over the industrialized heartland of Europe (or any similarly dense region)
First of all>88cm flakBut flak was an enormous resource, labor and manpower drain on the German manufacturing base. IIRC, the USSBS concluded that something in the neighborhood of 25% of German production had to be dedicated to AAA ammunition, requiring a huge expenditure of effort and fire to down a single bomber except under ideal circumstances. Every flak battery meant depriving a battalion of artillery support, along with a similar amount of manpower.
flak wasn't even good in WW2Albert Speer repeatedly pointed out that every reichsmark spent on flak would go 2-4x as far if spent on fighters, but hitler wanted big guns
>>65009267>88cmthat's a great idea anon. My first thought was to criticize, but maybe you're on to something. Fuck it, why not. I mean, if 88mm was good enough for the Germans, why not make a flak cannon ten times as large.
>>65010196>5 missed calls from Taiwan AD systems
>>65010185I heard that in 1945, due to shell shortages, they started trying for landing direct hits rather than the typical cloud of airbursts. This actually ended up proving more effective because their accuracy was better than they had theorised and a direct hit was pretty much a guaranteed kill.
>>65010335this is nonsense you are retarded for believing it
>>65009267>Spend $5000000 of ammo to take down one B-17 size target >Optimal against Shahed dronesTemu Air Force won.
>>65010337That was true, contact fuse proved to be more effective for AAA, everybody used flaks wrong.
>>65010335That was not due to ammo shortage. That started with theoretical paper by some German mathematician.
>>65010359more effective than timed fuses aimed improperly? sure.More effective than proximity fuses? no.
>>65010185>Albert Speer repeatedly pointed out that every reichsmark spent on flak would go 2-4x as far if spent on fighters, but hitler wanted big gunsFighters need shitloads of high quality gasoline, well trained pilots, airfields, etc.Flak guns can be shoved in the middle of nowhere, and used by people with minimal training.
>>65010359>contact fuse proved to be more effective for AAA, everybody used flaks wrong>t.
>>65010380Germans didn't have prox fuses. They had a choice between basic timed and contact. Turns out they should've just used contact.
>>65010416because tesla (who invented radio) was American (by choice).
>>65010416They didn't have altitude fuses?
>>65010416>They had a choice between basic timed and contact.They didn't.They started war with timed only flak ammo fuse. There were concerns about shells transportation safety if contact fuse option exist so it was ommitted (hilarious considering more numerous army ammo all had contact fuse).Latter in the war they added contact fusing option to timed shell and they became both timed and contact fuse shells. If such shell hit aircraft before detonation time it will explode. Previous time fuse only shells just pierced aircrafts without detonation. This increased flak effectiveness by factor of 2.Latter in the war due to ideas propagating by one mathematican (can't recall his name it in my records) they finally decided to try contact fuse only option. Rounds were set to very late explosion, guaranted past planes distance, so only way to down a plane was a direct hit. These experiment fires increased flak effectiveness by another factor of 2. But this happened in 1945 when country collasped so records were not full and thorough
>>65010594The mathematician was Karl Küpfmüller. What you are talking about is the following:>timed fuses have an poor time keeping accuracy: they tend to detonate in a normal distribution relative to their set time resulting in the shell exploding at a distance from the plane>End of war era fire control tend to be so accurate that the distribution of the shots being on target was much sharper than before >it's actually so precise that now the limiting factor is the time fuse accuracy, there's more chances that the fuse detonates in a no kill zone that there's chances we miss the planeThis is of course in theory and I don't think it was ever proved to work. Maybe your *2 figures come from a kill/shell fired, but idk where you found it
#bringbackthebofors
>>65010594>Latter in the war due to ideas propagating by one mathematican (can't recall his name it in my records) they finally decided to try contact fuse only option. To note, they changed their tactics as well. With time fuzes they basically aimed to make a barrage that would threaten the entire bomber formation.When they flipped to contact-only, they aimed for individual bombers.
>>65010694>Maybe your *2 figures come from a kill/shell fired, but idk where you found itYeah that was shells fired/bombers killed records in fires when they kept track of statistics but again it was 1945 and records were sparse.
>>65010699For that mass/volume you're better of with one of the modern 35mm mounts.Alos, didn't they try to put naval 76mm gun onto a tracked chassis way back in the 80s?Such a system sounds like what you really need to counter the Shaheed type UAVs.
fuck that being back barrage balloons
>>65011127Drones will just ram your balloons.
>>65011134you could probably make a balloon at a price comparable to a drone. and a drone hitting a balloon is a drone not hitting a supply truck
>>65011067Are you thinking of the OTOMATIC?
>>65011134That's the point, yeah.
>>65011844well, ideally drones would just get tangled up in cables hanging off the balloon.
>>65011134The drone would simply bounce off
>>65009837>2) we already have modern AA (picrel)That isnt modern AA. Looks like a CV9035. The 35 mm oerlikon gun is from the 1970s.
>>65011933>The 35 mm oerlikon gun is from the 1970s.And?
