Medium and heavy caliber AAA still in use

K

KonTim

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
13 August 2010
Messages
78
Reaction score
37
As we all know the development of medium and heavy caliber AAA guns has been stopped nearly after the end of WWII in favor of SAM systems.What if such systems were still part of the modern warfare?Are they possible designs and role for these kind of weapons?Have any project or design ever unveiled and i mean a really modern one?
 
In Friedmann "The Modern Warship" a project for a heavy (I think, it was 8 inch) AA shell is mentioned, using midcourse
guidance (once !). As this was seem to be hardly worthwhile enough for the SSPK, it was cancelled. Will look up for more
details this evening, but I'm afraid there weren't many.. It was, I think, from the late '50s.
 
KonTim said:
As we all know the development of medium and heavy caliber AAA guns has been stopped nearly after the end of WWII in favor of SAM systems.What if such systems were still part of the modern warfare?Are they possible designs and role for these kind of weapons?Have any project or design ever unveiled and i mean a really modern one?
Click to expand...

Yes. The OTO Melara 76mm automatic gun can now be obtained firing DART HEFSDS guided ammunition, in land vehicle as well as naval mountings. This was designed for anti-missile use, but would obviously be extremely effective against any type of aircraft. As with all SPAAGs, it can also engage a range of land targets very effectively when not employed in its primary role (although you might hesitate before putting such an expensive system at any more risk than is necessary).

P1010701w.jpg


P1010702w.jpg
 
Yes i am familiar with that system.Is there or,most important,it is possible the re-entrance of such systems in operational use?Lets say in the caliber of 57,85,100,130 mm guns.
 
I don't know if anyone's going to buy the Draco - it would be an interesting choice.

It seems unlikely that any other such systems will be developed in other calibres unless the Draco enters service and proves to be successful. It has probably only happened because the gun and ammunition technology were already available, having been developed for naval use.
 
As correction and consolidation of the aforementioned mentioned guided shell:
It evolved from project "Zeus" at the late '40s and actually was of a finned 4inch
shell fired from a smoothbore 8 inch gun.
Some information can be found here : http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/sam-n-8.html
 
I believe the Iranian Sa'ir (also mentioned as Sa'eer), a KS-19 with automatic loading and completely new fire control systems should merit mention here.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_iranian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa_eer_saeer_ks-19_automatic_100mm_anti-aircraft_gun_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html
 
Pretty funny weapon .
The KS19 has a fire rate of 15 RPM and the demography of Iran is high .
The 105mm gun M3 on mount M1 has a sustained rate of fire of 20 RPM and the M3 was standardized in 1933 !
The max range horizontal of the KS19 is 21KM . Apparently Iran progressed in the powders and ballistics !
I think that the embargo is rather effective or then there is a problem .
 
Apparently there was an error in the Army Recognition site, as it seems they wrote km instead of "thousand feet" with regards to altitude. 21km should be the maximum indirect fire range against ground targets, which is reasonable, considering the 100mm BS-3 (M-1944) field gun has a comparable maximum range. The correct ranges for the KS-19 can be seen here.
One question though: The only 105mm M3 I know is the light towed howitzer (on M3 carriage), which is in a totally different league, while the 105mm AA gun M1 on mount M1 (production started in 1938) was a static weapon produced in very small numbers. Are you referring to this weapon?
Besides, rate of fire is also dependent on the configuration of the rammer used. For example, the 90mm M1A1 had a rate of fire of 20 rpm (25 absolute max, for short periods), while the 120mm M1 fired at 12 rpm. The 105mm M1 should therefore fire at about 10-15 rpm, with the KS-19 having a slightly heavier round. I cannot be entirely sure, but the 105mm M1 being a static weapon, it could have a more elaborate (and heavier) loading system compared to the mobile KS-19. Still, I do think that overall the Sa'ir is not a bad effort.
 
Everyone made errors ( mistranslation etc ) but that one was funny .

The only 105mm M3 I know is the light towed howitzer (on M3 carriage), which is in a totally different league, while the 105mm AA gun M1 on mount M1 (production started in 1938) was a static weapon produced in very small numbers. Are you referring to this weapon?
Click to expand...

It's the same weapon but the name is incorrect . My source is : " British and american artillery of world war two " Ian V. Hogg

I cannot be entirely sure, but the 105mm M1 being a static weapon, it could have a more elaborate (and heavier) loading system compared to the mobile KS-19.
Click to expand...


CostasTT , I knew your answer .
Yes , the 105 M3 is static and heavy with a weight in action of 15212 kg . FLAK 38 : 10224kg , rate of fire : 10-12 RPM .
For the complexity I am not on no more .

Still, I do think that overall the Sa'ir is not a bad effort.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting question . Historically the heavy FLAK must be employed in great number to be effective ( To obstruct ) .
I will continue to seek .
 

Attachments

  • M3.jpg
    M3.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 277
  • M3 1.jpg
    M3 1.jpg
    719.9 KB · Views: 257
  • img025.jpg
    img025.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 245
I saw the video on youtube. They hide the breech and the rate of fire . I am septic...
 

Attachments

  • 75mm FLAK R4.pdf
    448 KB · Views: 18
KonTim said:
As we all know the development of medium and heavy caliber AAA guns has been stopped nearly after the end of WWII in favor of SAM systems.What if such systems were still part of the modern warfare?Are they possible designs and role for these kind of weapons?Have any project or design ever unveiled and i mean a really modern one?
Click to expand...

I think the only chance of realising more large calibre anti-aircraft guns in service after the 1950s (in the west at least) is through dual purpose coast defence, air defence guns. It’s worth noting that there are large numbers of large calibre anti-aircraft guns in service around the world mounted on naval ships (100mm, 113mm, 120mm, 127mm, 130mm). These guns are multi role weapons where their utility as anti-ship and anti-shore weapons is of more importance than their anti-aircraft capability but they still have the later.

The Swedes developed the Lvakan 4501 gun in the 1960s (see the naval gun projects thread) and built a one off which was effectively a land mobile version of their semi-automatic naval 120mm gun. This gun was for use as a dual coast defence, air defence weapon. In order to have this type of weapon more popular at this time you would need to craft an alternate history in which coast defence was of higher priority in the post WWII western militaries. Coast defence went out of fashion in the 1950s thanks to budget priorities but if these were different and the USA and UK retained their coast defences then you would have new generations of weapons being fielded including larger calibre guns. No doubt these weapons would probably use ordnance based on their naval counterparts (like the Swedes did) and various fixed and mobile mounts.
 
tround said:
Everyone made errors ( mistranslation etc ) but that one was funny.


It's the same weapon but the name is incorrect . My source is : " British and american artillery of world war two " Ian V. Hogg
Click to expand...

You're right, it's kind of funny.

As for the designation, I just looked in Ian Hogg's Allied Artillery of World War Two by Crowood Press and it's still referred to as the M3. The M1 designation is found in the Macdonald and Jane's WW2 Fact Files "Antiaircraft Guns" by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander. I'll be inclined to trust Hogg more on the designation, therefore I stand corrected.
 
"Apart from its shipboard fitting, the Giat Industries 100 mm Compact gun can also be used for coastal
defence in the anti-aircraft, anti-missile or anti-shipping roles. This turret was originally built for the
export market by Creusot Loire Industrie (who were subsequently taken over by Giat Industries). As of
early 2002, there are no known sales of this weapon for the coastal defence mission.
A proposed standard defence module or battery comprises one or two Compact 100 mm guns, a
multisensor fire-control system (usually a search radar and optical surveillance system), the facilities
necessary for the gun and the fire-control system, and the rooms required for the electric, hydraulic and
compressed air subsystems. The equipment is normally buried and fully protected in concrete bunkers
but can be produced in a mobile version on request.
The Compact turret houses a water-cooled 100 mm gun which can be remotely operated by one man.
The maximum rate of fire is 90 rds/min but this can be selected according to the target type and
ammunition required. A microprocessor-controlled fully reversible automatic ammunition replenishing
system is fitted. This can select, by a single push-button control, any one of three ammunition types in
the magazine. The normal ammunition load is 114 rounds but the system has the capability of being
reloaded as firing takes place.
Production of the Giat Industries Compact Mk 2 naval turrets is now underway for the three air
defence ships ordered by Saudi Arabia for its Sawari 2 programme "
 
According to this site: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/al_riyadh/ the Sawari 2 ships are armed with the 76mm OTO Melara.

Something looking very like the 100mm compact has been seen in China, and I had the impression that they had bought the system.
 
Frigate Al Riyadh was equiped of the compact 100mm between her setting in water the 1 august 2000 and its transfer towards Lorient with the Saoudi crew in March 2003 .
The other Frigates received the 76mm OTO Melara directly. Why the 100mm Compact was replaced ? Better shells ?

The 100mm Compact was sold to the china in 1984 . The copy is on Type 168 destroyers .
 
The SAPOMER has a greater range 20km vs 17.26km for the 100mm .
Both calibers are ineffective against hard targets (Bunker , trench ) .

Oto Melara for the turret " Above Deck " had developed a non guided high velocity ammunition , the TVR (Tempo di Volo Ridotto) of PFF type .
1250 ms , 6 sec for 6km . It was tested in 1993-1994 . It was developped to " Kill " sea skimming missiles .



Regards
 
Thanks for that.

I have always thought that the French/German 100mm (the last version of which was the Compact) had a good mix of characteristics, but after initial sales success it lost out to the US 5" (127mm) at the heavy end of the scale and the faster-firing and lighter Italian 76mm at the light end.

I suspect that the reason for switching to the 76mm for the later Sawari 2 ships was that the 100mm was no longer being developed, while both the 5" and the 76mm - plus their ammunition - continue to be improved.
 
Yes, ammunition of 100mm lack of improvements . the gun is not developed any more but i find his specifications pretty good and as you said , It have a good mix of characteristics .
I think of 8.8cm FLAK 41 and the 10,5cm FLAK 38 .
The FLAK 38 was the better of two . 2000 rounds to bring down a bomber for the FLAK 38 and 3000 for the FLAK 41 even if the 8.8 had a higher velocity .


The French army did not enough modernized his weapons , the Japan also ( type 74 MBT ... ) , For the JMSDF , I don't know .

I make a disgression .

The coastal bombardement is associated with the destruction of bunkers and fortifications .
North Korea coast have many of them and other in cavern .
The 155mm naval guns in development lack the capacity of destroy them .
Against Iran , this capacity is useless but the fortification remain useful .
A 203mm gun (8" L/55 Mark 71 MCLG not to name it ) can destroy bunker with a kind of guided Röchling shell and it's as effective as the 155 with DPICM .

Drones of the Hesbollah flew over Israel .
I think that the drone is a good mean for targeting the ships for antiship missiles .
They have a low cost and you can launch many of them .
There was a scenario of a war between China and the USA in 2020. The Chinese used small satellites for targeting .
 
I remember back in the '70s when rolling around Turkish air bases I'd see these ringing them.
m-45g_quad_50_zpsee07770a.jpeg


The Turks loved the 0.50 quads. We werent allowed to take pictures as they took that personal even tho they were operating WW2 equipment. It still was pretty cool to see these units still being used.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom