Back in WW2 the 88mm Flak which was an anti-aircraft gun was modified to be used as an anti-tank gun. With the proliferation of drones, would It be possible to modify a L55 120mm or even the L7 105mm gun into an anti-air/anti drone gun? This way tanks could defend against aerial threat all by themselves.
>>65639840the reason why AA guns were useful as AT guns is because the same traits that let it shoot down a heavy bomber, namely high muzzle velocity, are also what you need to penetrate armorbut thats not exactly a concern against drones, which tend to fly low and slow, so extreme muzzle velocity is not the highest prioritywhats actually needed is fast traverse to snap to targets at any angle and radar capable of spotting class 1 UAVs which is actually possible, russians have modified arena APS to successfully stop drone attacks, up to 15 drones per full ammo loaddedicated SHORAD uses a mix of autocannon fire and missiles, to hit both large and small drones
>>65639843They could still be useful for shooting down cruise missiles and OWA drones, for the same reason why in destroyers and frigates still carry a main gun for anti-air role
>>65639862the destroyers 5in gun fires way faster and is linked to a giant ship-sized fire control system that lets it lob shells out furtherno way a self-propelled mount can mount that, hence why they all use missiles or cannons insteadshooting down cruise missiles is done with counter-missiles for a reason
J
Artillery guns would be much easier to convert since many have automatic loading systems and they have the traverse and elevation
IMO any and all halfway suitable guns (mortars are probably out) need to be adapted to fend off drones. Tanks guns and artillery are probably unsuited for close range defence, but they could do it at longer range. Tank guns especially have fast projectiles that could use proximity fuses or something of the sort. The targetting data could come from your own drones, no need to even have line of sight.
>>65639840>high velocity gun used to shoot straight up at bombers 15,000ft above or higher>high velocity makes a good anti-tank gunDrones fly low and slow nigger, the 88 is the opposite of what you'd want.
>>65640218>Can hit a target that flies high and fast>Can't hit a target a flying target that flies slower
>>65640225Drones are also great at evasion, much better than planes.
>>65640229And AA guns have huge splash radiuses due to their diameter and amount of shrapnel each shell It can carry. One shell could take out a swarm on Its own while in WW2 It could only take out one plane
>>65640235>One shell could take out a swarm on Its ownEh, I don't know. Swarms could be quite spread out. But better splash does mean higher chance of kill.Of course, in the end the question is, is a shell actually a better and cheaper killer of a drone than another drone.
>>65639865If the ships radar can lock onto the missile, the cannon can be used to engage it with HE-VT
>>65639840>>65640201The US army is looking into this with the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System
>>65640201
>>65640658They were on to something, but the specifics of that system could not be sufficiently navalized, and the recoil could have damaged the framing.That being said, the other way around might be a good idea.Stick a naval 76 mm onto a PzH chassis, and you have a mobile AA gun that should be able to delete whatever comes flying.inb4 'muh fpvs'
>>65640854Neverbeendonebefo.
>>65642328Why nobody is trying to bring them back? With the proliferation of OWA drones being used to strike cities, 76mm rounds would be much cheaper and plentiful than SAMs
>>65640235>use wide-radius airburst rounds to protect infantry from FPV drones at close rangeI can see a slight problem with this arrangement.
Did someone just say "Otomatic"?'cause I think I just heard someone say "Otomatic".
>>65643314Maybe the infantry would be riding inside APCs and IFVs while under the "cover" of these new SPAAGs and tanks?
>>65643322>>65642328A modernized version could have AESA arrays
>>65643314Make the infantry less weak by removing woke agenda, introduce test-injections and struggle-sessions
>>65640235We need to pump that lethal radius up!No half measures!
>>65639862>main gun for anti-air roleyeah about that
>>65645994>He doesn't know
>>65643322https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWTIlnOIRo
>>65643322>>65644704Is (pic rel), but equipped with modern radar and guidance computers the answer to defeating enemies that spam fuckloads of sahed-style cheapo drones and bargain bin cruise missiles?Hell, you could even slap one of those fancy radio-programming muzzle devices on one of these things if you wanted to run programmable airburst rounds.
>>65639840>Back in WW288s were last in service as recently as the Vietnam war when the North was given a bunch that the USSR had in storage.
While it would likely be possible to intercept a Shahed, there is a risk that the situation could quickly become unmanageable if drones capable of subsonic cruising or flight in the sub-stratosphere were deployed.
>>65639843AA guns being used as AT guns was a money-saving measure. The Wehrmacht hated the 8,8cm Flak and asked for the 7,5cm Pak whenever they could.
>>65643322I mean, jsut do that with a bunch of Leo2 chassis.
The USSR really dropped the ball and fucked up with the KS-19. They could have had 50+ years of development but they had to be idiots and ignore it.
>>65648514>AA guns being used as AT guns was a money-saving measurenot specificallythe 88mm was designed for AA purposes, they realized that its high muzzle velocity would be really good for AT, so they slipped AP shells and cross-trained the crews for both AT and AA dutythe 75mm was replacing the 5cm, not the 88mm, with 75s organic to infantry AT units while the 88mm was a corp level assetso the units never had any 88s to replace in the first place, corp-level command would assign 88s to cover areas that needed additional firepower when they werent needed for AAthe 75 ended up replacing the 5cm because the 5cm was already struggling to defeat T-34s, while the 5cm replaced the 37mm because the 37mm was totally useless but they still needed a gun that didnt use up their increasingly short-supplied trucks to move around88s were supplemented, but not replaced, by 128mm guns and purpose-built 88s on AT chassis
>>65648https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS-19570
>>65648576‽Did i quote a deleted post?
>>65639840You're on to something, actually. BAE and the US Army are developing a guided projectile that will allow 155mm howitzers like the Paladin to intercept cruise and ballistic missiles as well as large drones line Shaheds. Presumably it could be effective against nearby aircraft as well. There is a version of the same projectile designed for 5" naval guns as well, but I don't know if it would be possible to fit in a slightly smaller 120mm gun.
>>65648582You deleted part of the post number you replied to.
>>65648589>>65648582Oh, actually you pasted your link into the middle of the post number.
>>65648590>>65648589I think i quoted a deleted post, my bad.Here, have some Nork pop, girl with the red base is my Nork pop fu:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQotKoEBjyk
>>65648595You quoted this post >>65648570 but pasted your wiki link between the 8 and the 5. It broke the link to the post as well as the wiki link.
>>65648608I honestly don't care, i'm past 4chan formatting shitposts, at least the Norks use humans for this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxcJW6bs5os
