Talk:Anti-aircraft warfare

Gap in US Army Equipment?

I belive the statement, "The United States Army has disdained air defense for ground units, counting on achieving air superiority. This has left a gap in American military equipment between the man-portable Stinger and the theater anti-missile system Patriot." should be removed. The existence of the Avenger Missle System, which has been in service since 1989, seems to disprove it.

It would be good to find a source which confirms or denies this statement. The presence of the Avenger alone doesn't really prove anything; it depends on the level of deployment, the presence and nature of AA assets at coy, bn, bde, div levels, doctrine, etc. —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:08 Z

By checking the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE), a US Division has 1 battalion of Air Defense Artillery assigned with between 1 and 3 batteries (companies) using the Avenger (12 Avengers per battery). Heavier divisions also have M6 Linebackers assigned (anti-aircraft versions of the M2 Bradley IFV). Check it out at GlobalSecurity.org. I think that disproves the statement in question. Movementarian 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections I am going to replace the disdain statement with something about the US Army Air Defense Artillery Regts. Movementarian 18:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The replacement to the above statement creates a misleading sense that the US Army has a comprehensive air defence system. The statement above is actually very close to being accurate (much closer than its replacement). Avenger and Linebacker are both glorified FIM-92 carriers+rangefinder. I'm not sure "disdain" is appropriate (and the XXI division has a MUCH strengthened SHORAD component in comparison to the older organization), but they definitely don't pay as much attention to it as some other Armies. So I replaced everything by listing out the main tiers and letting the reader decide the difference. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Structuring needed

The article needs disambiguation and restructuring badly. We should distinct between the weapon systems (i.e. mostly technical issues) and military organization (strategy, tactics, battle history, ranks so forth). One should know that "air defense" is not just a type of warfare, but also a name for the distinct military detachments (or whole forces - such as in USSR and North Korea). Would someone fix this because my English military terms are relatively poor (but ready to consult and discuss). AlexPU 17:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Making some progress. Nvinen 15:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to "Air Defense"?

The title "Anti-aircraft" sounds funny. Is it a noun? "Anti-aircraft warfare" or "Air defense" sounds much better. Comments? Kowloonese 21:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to get some kind of consensus on what the title for this article should be, since the current title seems awkward and ungrammatical. Something like "Anti-Aircraft warfare" or "Air Defense" would be good, I think. Something that's a noun, at least. Night Gyr 19:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to "Air defence", with a link from "Anti-aircraft" and possibly "Anti-aircraft warfare". I suppose it doesn't really matter if it's defence or defense but I'd put a link from one to the other to allow other articles to use either form. Nvinen 08:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Anti-aircraft warfare is the best choice. So I moved it and all links. Nvinen 14:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Air defence isn't just about ground-based weapons. It includes, for example, fighter interception, radar and observer corps (historically). So two separate articles are needed: an overview article about air defence in general, and a separate one that deals with AAA. Spliced 21:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

fuze/fuse

Is there a good reason "fuze" was changed to "fuse"? In my experience, the type of device we're talking about (proximity fuze, contact fuze, etc.) is usually spelled with a z. Dictionary.com agrees with me: [1]. I use fuze for this type of situation and fuse for, say, fusing two items together, despite the fact that I speak British English...

Shooting down aircrafts with small arms?

The current article states that most aircraft casualties in modern war are from small arms fire. that smells like bullshit to me. Fighters are armoured and it would be extremely difficult to shoot down a jet aircraft moving at mach 1.5 with a 9 mm. Shooting down low flying aircrafts with a bofors 40 mm would be much more likely.I would love to see some proof that most aircraft casualties are from small arms fire.

The above comment smacks of battlefield 3 tacticool.

Does man-portable AA missiles count as small arms? (Forgive me if this question is stupid...)--Kultz 02:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No man portable AA missiles are not small arms. Small arms are conventional man portable firearms which shoot down a extremly minute amount of aircraft. Whoever wrote they shoot down the majority of aircraft must have missunderstood or something.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've often run across the claim that an advantage of the AK-47 over the M-16 is that the larger calibur ammunition was not particularly helpful against personell, but was an advantage in shooting at aircraft.

Perhaps, but when you're trying to shoot down an aircraft...you want full-auto like that of the AK-47 --mboverload 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "shooting down aircraft with small arms" mean shooting down helicoptors, not jets.

Tangential comment: small arms have a very low chance of hitting and damaging airplanes, but I understand that the Soviet Cold-War antiaircraft doctrine was that ever available weapon including small arms would be trying to fill the air in front of a low-flying NATO jet with lead. I suspect pistols and SMGs would not be eligible. —Michael Z. 2006-05-17 15:53 Z

That was US doctrine also; I recall questioning it at the time ;) DMorpheus (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an army manual on small arms air defense; it includes heavy machine guns as small arms.

Additionally, I wonder if anyone knows if anti-materiel rifles (.50 BMG) could actually be used in the AA defense. I've heard that the Finns shot down a few planes during WWII using their 20mm rifle, but I'd like to see a definitive study/manual about using anti-material rifles this way. (IMHO, shooting the pilot really shouldn't count as an AA kill...) --UnneededAplomb (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it counts as an AA kill. Unless of course you shot the pilot on the ground outside of his plane, maybe in a a bar or at his home. I don't think that would count as an AA kill.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the statement regarding aircraft casualties reflects combat situations more than the suitability of small arms for the purpose. The majority of recent aircraft losses in combat have been situations where an industrialized nation completely controls the airspace over a numerically superior force armed largely with small arms. Small arms will cause the majority of aircraft losses when small arms are the only thing being fired at aircraft. Despite measures taken for pilot protection, jet turbines operate at high speeds and high temperatures within close tolerances; and are easily damaged by any solid material, including bullets, ingested pieces of a damaged forward airframe, and broken turbine blades. Hydraulic systems necessary for actuation of control surfaces are similarly vulnerable to damage causing leaks and ultimate loss of aircraft control.Thewellman (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

German Term

The german term stated as the root of flak is different from the one stated in the wiktionary. Here it is Flugabwehrkanone (and in the disambiguation page for flak), Wiktionary states Fliegerabwehrkanone.

(unsigned)

The correct German term really is Flugabwehrkanone. Please have a look at the German sister page as well as at at least somewhat authorative sites like http://www.geschichte.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN48PDnYDSYGYAYb6kTChoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq1YIQ/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzdfU1NI (History pages of German Airforce, sorry for long url) or http://www.bundesarchiv.de/bestaende_findmittel/bestaendeuebersicht/body.html?id_main=1643&where=naeheres&what=id_bestand&id_bestand=1643 (Federal German Archive catalogizing documents from WW 1, see first blue box). --MBP 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Middlebrook's The Nuremberg Raid (Cassell, 1980) gives Fliegerabwehrkanone in a footnote. Perhaps both terms are correct or, at least, were widely used. I note also that linguistically Flug doesn't make much sense — "flight defence cannon"? Flieger or Flugzeug makes much more sense assuming an accusative as in, say, "Abwehr gegen Flieger". PT 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As a German I can confirm that FLUGabwehrkanone is at least the more common than FLIEGERabwehrkanone. And FLUG is CORRECT, it may make no sense, but that is what it is known as, a Flugabwehrkanone! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

see also the German Wikipedia: FLUGabwehrkanone 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline in conventional flak

I have removed the passage that stated large long-range AAA guns like the 88mm no longer exist. This is incorrect, while their use has declined in favor of SA missilesthey are still used due to thie relative inexpensiveness.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to say that modern missiles have partly replaced the need for very large AA guns. —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:09 Z

Barrage balloons?

As someone who recently read Steinbeck's "Once there was a war", I got interested in the use of barrage balloons for air defense. As "Air defense" is redirected to "Anti-aircraft warfare", it would have been interesting to read someone knowledgeable's description of their use and effectivity.

Perhaps someone could add a section about that?

Anders Berglund 09:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Need separate article on AAA

This article is on the general topic. We have a specific article on SAMs, but we need an overview of guns too. Anybody up for splitting it out and repointing the redirects? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably it would be good if this anti-aircraft warfare article fitted into the same pattern as Armoured warfare ie that nice nav box down the side. Though how assymetric got in there - longbow vs french cavalry - not a sole technical advantage but more a combination of weapon and disposition. .55 Webley vs Maori war club that's a technical advantage. But I digressGraemeLeggett 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Skysweeper but no Soviet/Russian Guns?

Russian AAA weapons were utilized in air defense in North Vietnam and in other conflicts but is not mentioned in this article. Also, where would be mention of such weapons as "Shilka" or various other mobile AAA? Hatcat 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

B-24 20mm?

There is an amazing image of a B-24 breaking up after being hit by flak. The caption states it is 20mm fire, but the image page does not specify the source. Looking at the picture I'd estimate the aircraft is over 10k feet in altitude which makes it extremely unlikely this is a 20mm hit, and almost certainly an 88. Can anyone say more about this image? Maury 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Could be lots of things - 105mm flak, fighter cannon - who knows? I don't see how we can possibly know the bomber was hit by 88 mm fire. DMorpheus (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The wing of the plane is burning and tearing off, which suggests something lit the fuel in it. I'm not sure that Flak can do that, but my intuition claims that it was shot with by a German Interceptor, which usually has 15, 20, and 30 mm light cannons. Victory in Germany (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistent Mistake regarding 1-pounder Guns

The article claimed twice that guns firing a one-pound projectile are of 20 mm caliber. That is technically impossible, the heaviest 20 mm projectiles ever used were around 150-160 grm in weight, which is only a third of a pound. The actual caliber of the one-pounder guns used first as AAA , e.g. the Maxim Pom-Pom, was typically 37 mm. Now corrected. Textor 09:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only find one instance of "1 pound" in the article, and no calibre is mentioned. Am I missing something? Maury 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - my previously unmentioned edit of said problem. Look at the article's history, and compare the current with an earlier version. Textor 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Claim that Nike Ajax SAM was based on German Wasserfall

I deleted the following statement on the Ajax guided anti-air missile: (based on the German Wasserfall). According to the articles on the Nike_Ajax and the Wasserfall, the former was developed independently of the latter. The legacy of the Wasserfall is described as: After World War II, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101. Textor 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for Consistency across Articles on the same Subject

user:Maury_Markowitz reverted this delete, stating that the Wasserfall-NIke connection is well documented. In this case, may I suggest that the sources proving this connection be referenced, and the respective articles on the missiles updated to include the information? Otherwise, they will appear inconsistent, if not contradictory. Personally, I have currently no such sources available. Textor 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, last I checked, both the Wasserfall and Project Nike state this. Oh, no, I take that back, it appears Project Nike does not have this statement, at least any more.

The history that I have read, in several places, states that reports on Wasserfall were captured and returned to the US where they were evaluated as part of the existing BTL work on missile systems -- these had started in early 1944, but had remained strictly paper projects until Feb '45. Additionally, several Wasserfall C-1's were sent to the US. I've read this on several places on the 'web, and I believe I first heard it in one of Ian Hogg's books (typically fairly well checked, if lacking detail), but I'm guessing he was just quoting Lussar. At least one of these still exists, on display at Aberdeen.

That's not to say it's correct, however. I also have conflicting information which states that Wasserfall data was not known when they were compiling the AAGM Report of May '45. It was this report that led directly to the go-ahead on Project NIKE. But given this conflict I went with what I had seen "everywhere else" (for instance, Ed Thelen's notes). Nor should the language state that Ajaz WAS Wasserfall, Ajax was, of course, a far more developed and practical weapon. Maury 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've continued to try to find more information on this, and failed. It appears I may have been repeating an internet myth! I'm going to take the Army's word for it and move the mention of the possible Wasserfall link to a separate sentence. Maury 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Removal of PZA Loara Image

Three reasons: 1. the image was put in the introductory section, instead of the one on Post-War developments. If you want to restore it, please put it there 2. The PZA Loara may lack notability as a representative example for SPAAGs, compared to others: it is a recent project, used solely by Poland, and its technology appears unremarkable. Older, more widely employed SPAAGs like the Russian ZSU-23-4 Shilka, or the German Gepard, may make more recognizeabale examples. Alternatively, the Tunguska-M1 could be used as an example that is both more widely employed and technologically advanced. 3. The image is also already used as an illustration for the SPAAG article. Textor 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To the owner of the IP 89.76.87.63:

how about an explanation why you put up the above mentioned image again, in the same inappropriate place, in spite of its dubious relevance? Are there any good reasons why it has to be posted twice, in this article and the one on SPAAGS? Textor 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

effective altitudes

what a funny article...the whole thing is about anti-aircraft weapons, but no information is given for effective engagement altitudes of the weapons mentioned, or define what the various altitudes are in terms of defining the AA/AD units. --Mrg3105 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sawing off wings

The article states:

Because the Quad 50's 4 separate guns could be pre-set to converge at a given distance, it could saw off the wing of a low-flying enemy plane attempting to complete a strafing run.

This sounds like a military urban legend to me. Simple analysis: WW2 fighter plane speeds varied from about 275 knots (450 fps) to 390 knots (640 fps). Let's work with 450 fps to be conservative. The rate of fire of the .50 cal is around 500 rounds per minute, so a quad 50 is about 2,000 rounds per minute, or 33 rounds per second. Hence, if a plane flies past perpendicularly the average spacing between (potential) hits is 450 fps x 1/33 s = 13.5 feet, which is obviously not even in the ballpark of "sawing off wings". This spacing can be reduced by a factor of sinθ if the plane is flying not perpendicularly to the line of fire, but more or less straight at it, but it is going to have to be almost perfectly aligned to do any "sawing". In short this claim looks bogus to me.-- 202.63.39.58 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very likely a legend, though for different reasons:

making the barrels of a multiple-gun AA mount converge at a given distance would requiry rather complicated and precisely moveable installations for each gun - in addition to the ones needed for laying the whole mount. For all that complication, it would not add very much to the lethality of the weapon, but make hitting rapidly moving targets more difficult. Also, the .50 M2 Brownings with their moving barrels had a rather high dispersion, which would negate to some degree the possible benefit of concentration their fire.

As to the sawing off of wings: that may happend when lucky hits magange to break a wing spar, especially on lighly built aircraft like e.g. the Japanese Mitsubishi Zeros. But it would be much harder to achieve this effect with the small, non-explosive .50 projectiles, compared to the explosive shells of heavier AA-guns, like the German quadruple 20 mm Flak 38.

I suggest we remove this eddit, unless it can be properly referenced.

Textor 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference

a forum is not a proper refernce SubaruSVX (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

120 mm M1 Gun

Wikipedia entry for 120 mm M1 gun states " No 120 was ever fired at an enemy aircraft." Obviously it wasn't much use. Added this info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.250.33 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions - article title (anti-air warfare) sometimes limited to maritime forces - change ?

Despite earlier discussion this article is wrongly named. AAW is not the same as AD.

AAP-6 (NATO Glossary) sets the following definitions:

air defence AD All measures designed to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of hostile air action.

anti-air warfare AAW Measures taken to defend a maritime force against attacks by airborne weapons launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based sites.

Also note: active air defence Active measures taken against attacking enemy forces to destroy or nullify any form of air or missile threat or to reduce the effectiveness of any such attack.

passive air defence Passive measures taken for the physical defence and protection of personnel, essential installations and equipment in order to minimize the effectiveness of air and/or missile attack.

defensive counter-air operation Active and passive defensive measures designed to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or make ineffective forces attempting to attack or to penetrate friendly airspace.

offensive counter-air operation OCA An operation mounted to destroy, disrupt or limit enemy air power as close to its source as possible. Nfe (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SPAAG Being Replaced

The sentence stating that most SPAAGS have been replaced by MANPADS is obviously inconsistent with the page on SPAAGs where at least a dozen modern SPAAGS from various countries in deployment are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.242 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Range-finding by searchlight?

Descriptions of Second World War anti-aircraft defences often refer to bombers being "coned" by multiple searchlights. Was this ever used for measuring altitude? If you had an aircraft coned by three (or even two) searchlights at surveyed locations connected by telephone, simultaneously measuring the angle of the lights from vertical would enable you to do a trigonometric calculation of the altitude of the aircraft. That would be be of great assistance in accurately setting time fuses. Did anyone ever try it? Peter Bell (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Altitude estimation was a primary function of searchlights; but measurement, computation, and communication difficulties limited practical accuracy within available engagement time. Aside from problems with communication protocol for identifying and keeping more than one searchlight on the same aircraft, computational methods devised for ship targeting with contemporary convergent optical rangefinders were complicated by adding a third angle.Thewellman (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Amd sa11.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amd sa11.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Civilian options?

I checked out this article to get a primer on what licenses civilians would need for surface to air missiles such as the stinger and other possible civilian options. Obviously I will be able to find the information elsewhere but it would have been helpful to myself if this information was included.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.88.143 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

optronics

The section mentioning radar being superseded by optronics doesn't make sense because optronics is defined on the physics page as stuff on the electromagnetic spectrum, like radar.

"organic weapons"

In the line "Self-defence by ground forces using their organic weapons" - What is meant by that? Spitting? Zerg devourers? I just don't get what "organic weapons" means if you take this term seriously. If it is a specific technical term, it needs an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.46.40 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

52pianos (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Means weapons normally part of ground forces. For infantry, it would be pistols, rifles, and perhaps a squad automatic weapon, or something like that. It excludes artillery, dedicated AA weapons, and the like.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Postwar section could note use of AAA in Korean War

The section title POSTWAR infers all actions following WWII were incidental or unremarkable. This section needs to be enlarged to include AAA in the Korean War. Almost from the opening days, the 26th AAA was used much more for infantry support than for antiaircraft, with AAA units becoming known as "The Automatic Infantry" in the desperate delaying actions along the Kum River, at Taejon and throughout the defense of the Naktong Perimeter. Many men were highly decorated for their actions in Korea, including the Distinguished Service Cross to Harold Haugland, Montana, (15th AAA) during actions at the Chosin Reservoir. [anon]

I think not. The article is about AA warfare not AA units or using AA weapons for non-AA tasks. Nfe (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Article doesn't really explain its subject

This article seems to assume an understanding of the principles of AA (or FLAK). I wasn't able to find anywhere that really explains how it works or how high the shells can be launched, etc. In particular, I looked up "Flak" and was redirected here to get all kinds of more general information (barrage balloons, whatever) that seems quite irrelevant to flak. Beowulf (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does ack-ack derive from the German for eight-eight?

This article currently states that the term "ack-ack" derives from the spelling alphabet used by the British Army for voice transmission of "AA". According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ack-ack the derivation is "British army World War I phonetic alphabet for AA, abbreviation of anti-aircraft". However according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ack-ack the derivation was from the British signalmen's former telephone pronunciation of AA, abbreviation of antiaircraft, first Known Use: 1926. World War 1 obviously predates 1926, so we have a mismatch here. At http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ack-ack it places the origin of its use to describe anti-aircraft guns in 1935 only. At http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ack-ack they attribute the first use to 1939.

My understanding is that the derivation was from the German "acht acht", meaning 88, as in the 88mm AA cannon. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88mm quotes a source which says the Germans introduced a high-velocity anti-aircraft cannon based on the 88mm in 1917 already. Its thus quite possible that the Germans called it the acht acht gun during WW1, and that the British and others adopted that usage during WW1 for AAA generally. Its a bit of a serious stretch that the British used "ack" to describe the letter A, when the Germans coincidently used the 88mm gun for AA defense and the German word for 88 is acht acht. Wdford (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first use by the British Army of "Ak" for "a" in 1898, "Ack" appears later in a 1904 regulations document. The OED also gives as an example of use a quote from the Daily Mirror in August 1916: The ‘Ack-Ack’ gun..is just an anti-aircraft gun, ‘Ack’ being the name for ‘A’. That the English language having Germanic roots had a similar sound - though different meaning - to a German word is quite plausible.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Phonetic alphabet. Why would British soldiers even know the Germans used acht acht? How would they know? Voice comms used line, wireless was limited to CW, ie transmit letters in Morse code - AA which would be read out as Ack Ack. And there were very few AA guns in any case. Merriam-Webster is underinformed.Nfe (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'ack' was simply the WW I British Army's signals equivalent of the current 'Alpha' in the phonetic alphabet. See here: NATO_phonetic_alphabet#History_2 - although it was also used in early WW II.

... it's also why at the time the morning was sometimes referred to as 'ack-emma' - AM. Afternoon was 'pip-emma' - PM, and is referred-to in an Agatha Christie novel as the respective names of two twins, Pip and Emma, a joke as they were born in the afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Antwerp X

Since there was some brief controversy about this, thought we should have a section to discuss the anti V-1 defenses of London and Antwerp. I see this as primarily a place in the article to mention the invention of automatic tracking radar (e.g. SCR-584), radio proximity fuze, and the electronic gun director. I notice there is no Wikipedia article about the M-9 director, and it probably deserves one. If nothing else, there is the story that it was invented in the dream of a Bell Labs scientist. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For more detail, the Antwerp defenses consisted primarily of 208 90-mm guns and 137 British QF 3.7 guns. A number of smaller (40 mm) guns were not found to be effective against the V-1. The 90 mm gun batteries were the interesting because they exemplified the most advanced technology at that time: automatic radar target tracking, electronic gun directors, and radar proximity fuzes. The intent is to discuss those important inventions, not to be "US-centric".

I'm researching the British QF 3.7 guns. It appears they did not use these new technologies. The last version used the so-called "predictor no. 11", which I think is what some articles call the automatic fuse setter MFS no. 11? It appears the British systems used altitude-based fuzes which were automatically set by the gun director, and the targets were tracked manually by telescopes. I'm going to keep digging to see if more advanced technology appeared later in the war. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

i am using http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz.html Irondome (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would go further. I would advocate a seperate article Missile defences and countermeasures in World war 2. The subject is amazingly rich and has potential for a good new addition to the WP military technologies collection of essays. We could even add Fritz X and other 1st generation air-to surface missile threats and electronic countermeasures employed. See my talkpage (very last thread down) for some rough comments I made on this last night Irondome (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My initial thoughts last night, C & P'ed for convienience.

the whole section may have to be lengthened. There is lots of dubious fat stuff in that article. we could make room for a critical section dealing with the first anti-missile defences. PF technology, late war radars and even that there was a variant of a Vickers Wellington (which was arguably the first multi-engined AWACS) to pick up VI cruise missiles coming over the North sea launched via bomber. Fighters would be vectored if feasable. But they gave warning shortly sfter launch. Also that British defence radar networks were capable of detecting V2 re-entries and roughly vectoring their impact area, but there was no time to issue alerts due to the 30 second to 1 minute maximum radar telemetry they could only get. It is a hugely rich field. I would say expand and prune other stuff with consensus. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An article about anti-missile defense is a good idea. The Antwerp-X project straddles the two subjects, since anti-aircraft technology was used, but for rocket missiles, new technology had to be developed. A good source of information about the V-1 defenses can be found here: [www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/733387.pdf].

With regard to radar, there is a fascinating discussion in Theodor von Karman's post-war reports ("Where We Stand"). He describes how far behind the Germans were with radar, and how they learned lot from studying crashed British and American planes. The SCR-584 has a huge impact, because the US shared it during the war. They gave units to the Soviet Union, who copied them and used the (called "Binokl") for decades. One of Rosenberg's spies gave the Soviets the Lewis Scanner, which they used extensively in their anti-aircraft radars like Fan Song. DonPMitchell (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And here is another article on British Radar in WWII: [www.konyvtar.zmne.hu/docs/Volume7/Issue1/pdf/14guly.pdf]

@DonPMitchell: I would be very happy to work with you on a new article. I think it is viable. The SCR-584 was the best gunlaying system in WW2. Its direct control of the weapon's elevation was a revolution. The British Army had a distinctive independent designation for them, indicating considerable usage. I would say it was a draw. You get the proximity fuse, we got the 584 :) Seiously the 1940 and subsequent technology transfers were critical in victory. The mooted article is full of uncovered ground, as I have mentioned upthread. Really informative stuff presented attractively, if we can get it right would be a big asset to the whole 1st gen missile and PGM threat and early countermeasures subject, and a first on WP. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I know something about the Soviet AA missile technology, but my own research has focused more on their ICBM and space rockets. I know that the Russians invested a big effort in trying to finish the German Wasserfall concept. Isaev developed rocket engines that were superior to the German ones, used in their AA missiles and the infamous SCUD.

With regard to AA artillery, I'm not sure when the SCR-584 was adapted to work with British guns. Maybe that was a post-war development. At Antwerp, it appears that the there were 13 batteries of 90 mm guns controlled by SCR-584 and M-9 directors, which were deployed out along incoming attack azimuths. About half that many British guns were deployed in a more widespread pattern, using searchlights and optical tracking. There are detailed maps of the gun placements in the dtic.mil article I linked above. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted from an anonymous address. I wish he would identify himself and explain what his problem was. The section he edited is referenced by two detailed articles and well supported. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Allies developed 3 separate microwave gunlaying radar systems in parallel, with all 3 systems starting development at roughly the same time, with the following, rather unofficial designations: The USA's GL III(A) (SCR 584), the UK's GL III(B) and Canada's GLIII(C). GLIII(C) was the first into production and it suffered from not the having the same development time as the latter two systems, but was put into production anyways as it was already "good enough". It did not use RPC of the gun, using a "follow the pointer" system instead. GLIII(B) followed. Both systems were quite comparable in accuracy to SCR 584 except for very short range, high speed, low altitude targets where SCR 584 had the edge. SCR 584 was used to RPC British Army 3.7in guns in conjunction with the Bell Labs No. 10 predictor,and the Brits gave the following rounds per AA (probably V-1) kill: 100-150 rounds with VT ammo (fuzes produced in the USA under lend-lease contracts), 600-800 rounds with the type 208 time fuze. (data from British War office book, Army Radar, 1950.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

British English editnotice request

Please create an edit notice for this article, placing in it the template {{British English|form=editnotice}}. Thank you! KDS4444^Talk 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 01:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the "General description" section, it says

• weapons free: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly.
• weapons hold: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order.
• weapons tight: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile.

I have to assume these are listed in alphabetical order, but it seems to me they'd be better listed in order of control, viz:

• weapons free: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly.
• weapons tight: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile.
• weapons hold: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order.

I'm going to make the change, but wanted to explain my rationale, in the unlikely event that anyone cares.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Naval Anti-Aircraft

The US Navy put some thought into this as well? Well, that will cover glossing over to a major extent. I'd direct your attention to Norman Friedman's book on the subject. The singular most advanced systems deployed during WW2 was by the US Navy. The reason was that they were well aware of just how inadequate their AA system was when they deployed drones they could test the systems out on and shoot down the drones. The US was shipping AA gear to the RN because it was so much in advance of what they had. Overall all naval AA is treated very lightly if at all.Tirronan (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The advantage of the (tachymetric) US Mk 37 Director vs the(non-tachymetric) British HACS may be overstated by Friedman, as there have been suggestions his figures for Mk 37 directed 5" AA kills are based on uncorrected USN claims, rather than the corrected IJN loss figures, which have long been available in books by other researchers. His treatment of barrage fire by the two navies is also wildly inconsistent, first disparaging the systematic and ABU-controlled RN usage, despite its proven effectiveness in the Med, then saying the USN did not use it, immediately after giving examples where they did. Equally HACS evolved towards a pseudo-tachymetric system with the addition of the Gyro Rate Unit from fairly early in the war. The RN itself apparently concluded Mk 37 was superior, having realised adopting a non-tachymetric system was a mistake, but received very few Mk 37s, with only the early trials system on HMS Delhi seeing action (the other 42 systems eventually allocated went into HMS Vanguard, the Ark Royal class carriers and some of the Battle class destroyers, all of which are effectively postwar). Even Friedman states that the RN was the best-prepared navy wrt naval air defence going into WWII. WRT inadequacies in USN AA defence discovered firing at drones, Friedman also points out that this was identified very shortly pre-war, ie the Mk 37 predates it.

82.11.66.40 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

HACS had serious problems as the RN noted and it was improved. You leave out the fact that the RN hated the MK 37 so much that they got the 42 units and ordered more. The RN Admiral in charge of Task Group 37 noted the better equipment as well. That said, the RN had far better AA than anyone else but the USN. It never stopped improving and the two countries were constantly sharing data and equipment. Virtually, anything that the US had was shared with the UK and this was reciprocated. As for World War 2, in naval AA had the best but the RN was catching up and quickly. They were not competitors they were allies in every sense of the word. Nor was the USN happy with its AA. The kamikaze situation had turned a horrible air war into a complete nightmare. There was and still is a lot of room for improvement. BTW both countries share many of the same contractors in the day and age. BAE to name one. This isn't a competition and it never was.Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I've been creating major updates to this article. I promise you that I am the last person on the planet to consider myself infallible. Please note any errors or feel free to correct them. When it comes to thick skin, I have no equal.Tirronan (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Second World War and the mysterious 55mm Flak

In this part is written: "After the Dambusters raid in 1943 an entirely new system was developed that was required to knock down any low-flying aircraft with a single hit. The first attempt to produce such a system used a 50 mm gun, but this proved inaccurate and a new 55 mm gun replaced it." - could You please state what 55m Flak that would be? Looking at the 50mm Flak 41 it does not seem that this development was continued into a 55mm but an 88mm Flak. If one looks at the 50 mm Flak it looks very similar to a 88mm (eighty-eight) Flak 41, which is btw not comparable to the 88mm Flak 36/37. Also I have no knowledge of such a 55mm FLAK! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First successful engagement of a military aircraft by anti-aircraft fire - Incorrect

The article currently states:

On 30 September 1915, troops of the Serbian Army observed three enemy aircraft approaching Kragujevac. Soldiers shot at them with shotguns and machine-guns but failed to prevent them from dropping 45 bombs over the city, hitting military installations, the railway station and many other, mostly civilian, targets in the city. During the bombing raid, private Radoje Ljutovac fired his cannon at the enemy aircraft and successfully shot one down. It crashed in the city and both pilots died from their injuries. The cannon Ljutovac used was not designed as an anti-aircraft gun; it was a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured during the First Balkan War in 1912. This was the first occasion in military history that a military aircraft was shot down with ground-to-air fire.[21][22][23'

This is actually incorrect, on the 23rd of September 1914 2nd Anti Aircraft Pom Pom Section RGA commanded by Lieutenant O. Hogg fired 75 rounds and shot down a German aircraft flying over the British Expeditionary Force near the River Aisne. (History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery: Anti-aircraft artillery, 1914-55, Sir Martin Farndale, Basil Perronet Hughes, 1996, Page 5) This pre-dates the cited example in the article by over a year.

I suggest that the article is corrected in line with the above.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bepo 094.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Finnish air defense for Helsinki durnig WWII

The article does not mention the way Helsinki was defended agains soviet bombers. The aa-guns fired continous screening fire around Helsinki Center spo that bomber could not fly through. They did not try to shoot down individual planes but just continously to deny the airspace over Helsinki center. Linkato1 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to "Air defense"?

Many of todays air defense actions involve missiles, which are not aircraft. Should the article be moved to "air defense" to reflect this? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

New redirect from UAV countermeasure

I just created a redirect from UAV countermeasure to the pertinent section on this page. I personally think that would be a workable name for a main article on the topic. I can't see drone warfare expanding at this pace, and not soon needing a main page devoted to UAV countermeasures. UAV countermeasure could also cover netting and camouflage, in addition to fancy gadgets like the Lithuanian EDM4S. — MaxEnt 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we have a comparison of air-defence systems

There is a Comparison of anti-ballistic missile systems but no Comparison of anti-aircraft systems; and anti-aircraft system redirects to this article. (I was looking for a comparison of Russian S-300, S-350, S-400 systems.) Surface-to-air missile doesn't seem to cover any related radar systems. - Should/could anti-aircraft system be split out of this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)