Want to enjoy some A-10 30mm BRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT......Check this out! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nriHe8Sj27elf6c.html

AA guns will never be obsolete as long as you can mount one in the back of a Toyota truck.

Can fool a missile but you can't fool a 20-35mm round

"I've yet to see a man to outsmart bullet" - Heavy weapons guy

"Some people think they can outsmart me...maybe...but I've yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet"

The best thing about AA guns, if they no longer become viable for aircraft, there's nothing stopping you from using them for anti infantry.

High power laser defenses: *Locks onto incoming target* Rain or Snow: "i'm about to end this systems entire career"

I've yet to see flares, chaff, and aircraft made of funny shapes outsmart a large, technologically advanced bullet.

AA artillery commonly plays the role of close infantry support. You dont really need MBT all around for taking out sniper nests if you has AA gun available. It is especially useful in the mountain area were you can not even bring MBT everywhere.

After the Beirut barracks bombing we had to set up another perimeter. I don't know where it came from but we got a 40mm Bofors mounted on a trailer, (WWII vintage). We never got harassed at that check point again.

One thing will always remain true. If you throw up a enough lead nothing can survive flying through it.

Thing is, unlike sam’s, conventional cannon rounds truly are omni-purpose. Just as useful against most light ground targets as they are against air targets

I would personally feel much safer on for example a boat if i knew there was an actual gun fitted as a last ditch measure for whatever managed to make it through the other lines of defense. That's one of the reasons why i love the Phalanx so much.

as the Russian badger said "Its just the ultimate form or throwing a rock". Guns are just the evolution of a bow and arrow. which is an evolution of a sling.

North Korean leaders love anti-aircraft guns... their relatives, not so such.

as long as it has proximity fuse, a very good tracking system, it will never get obsolete.

Quote Brit Officer WW2 "We wondered how effective smaller German AA guns were, a truck drive on to the road within seconds it was aflame we wondered no more."

"Are they obsolete?" Didn't we ask this about guns on fighters some time ago? 🤔

na, because of drones they just became necessary. also, i aggree on the economic side. a nation cant throw guided missles/shells at everything that moves... thats why "tube-arty" still exists. iam actualy surprised that these "prob.-CAS-planes" have not become more popular, they probably cost the same as an medium/longrange SAM :-)

Low flying pilot: nooo, I can't just be shut down with direct cannon fire, this isn't WWII! I'm going Mach 1.2! AAA operator: "haha, autocannon go brrrr!"

no matter how cheap the missile, it'll always be more then a rack of AA rounds

Aircraft have counter-measures against missiles. They don't have counter-measures against bullets. Also missiles are expensive as hell and are dependent on things like heat and chemical exhaust trails.

Anti aircraft guns can, in some circumstances, be considered *triple use.* With a sophisticated enough fire control system they can be used as point defence, the CIWS being the obvious example. But it's now being scaled down to systems on tanks that shoot down (or at least destabilize enough to prevent a clean hit and penetration) incoming rounds from RPG's and so forth. Such a system would also be very worrisome to the guy firing said RPG, and anything low flying as well.

At the end of the day, it's good ol' dakka that saves ya hide xD

AA guns aren’t obsolete. These are still great against Helicopters, huge drones and heavy drop ships (like a C-130). For supersonic jets and small missiles It would be better to use laser anti air weaponry. Also anti air guns would be improvised against infantry or light armor

EVERY. SINGLE. MAJOR. ADVANCEMENT. in technology has been hailed as the end-all-be-all. TNT, battleships, tank’s, airplanes, nuclear weapons. And yet despite all the advancement in the last 150 years, every one of those systems is still in service in one form or another. The reason? Because they’re needed. Today’s combat is so thickly multi-layered no one system can have a hope of winning the day or performing its task on its own. Look at AA missiles, sure they can cover 50km. Cool. So what happens when someone manages to sneak up within say 2 or 3km? AA gun. Sure a laser has zero travel time, but what happens when you lack the chemical fuels or cryogenics needed to make it work? AA gun. Need to take out light vehicles but no tanks or dedicated anti-vehicle weapons? AA gun. Every time a new tech has attempted to supplant an older tech it just creates a vulnerability. AA guns are here to stay because they work too well and are too versatile to do away with.

I think the Egyptians in the 6-day war used the tactic of having a SAM umbrella that forced planes low into AA guns.

No matter how a war starts, it always end up with two guys trying to bash the other's head in with a brick. There is value in low tech as long as it's available.

AA guns and canons will ALWAYS have a place in the military. You can't EMP or disable a Shell, only block em.

*Hears a sewing machine in operation* Other humans: meh, just a mechanical sewing machine. Me: Ahhhh, the glorious ZSU 23-4 in action.

They're meant mostly for helicopters instead of planes.

It will be interesting to see how advanced anti-aircraft guns perform in actual combat against drones, cruse missiles, helicopters and low flying aircraft.

Totally agree anti aircraft artillery when placed on a highly mobile platform can be a major force multiplier on the ground and air it wont all go to missiles like you say cost!! That Rhinemettal cannon just looks awesome

i remember watching a video of insurgents almost killing a high ranking soldier by dropping a hand grenade on him from a cheap quad rotor drone so it seems like a viable threat

1:40 to answer it as shortly as I can, f4 phantom during the Vietnam war taught a lot, so we are DEFINETLY are going to use this in the near future just as a last resort weapon if everything else fails

I love how one video can convince me that a certain channel is of solid quality Great video!

4:31 Yes, missiles are very logistics, and maintenance intensive to upkeep. They are also much more difficult (also more expensive) to properly train personnel on. Well, at least when compared to conventional gun systems *(which is pretty much, what EVERY amateur missile proponent overlooks every time).* It's primarily, because missiles have very expensive, and sophisticated electronics, in their sensors, and flight computer. It also kinda explains why a majority of missiles are kept inside boxes/containers......doing this apparently helps prevents these sensitive electronics from being damaged *(or messed up in some way)* by the outside environment.

When playing project reality coop The scariest thing you will saw is ZSU-23-4 Shilka That shit is scary

Dakka is never obsolete...just ask Ma Deuce.

With how fun the M16 is in Men Of War Assault Squad 2, I'd be very interested to see the Tunguska vs infantry

Hey Matsimus, so I saw this and I noticed you made a very good point about how most AAA is radar guided nowadays. This makes me wonder: how would this help against something with SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) armaments? These types of weapons lock onto enemy radar signatures and then destroy those radars (and ideally the weapons system connected to it). Do you think you could do a video on SEAD weapons, how they’re employed, and how to counter them? Additionally, I’m totally in agreement with you on the premise that conventional AAA isn’t going anywhere because there are a couple points with missile based air defenses that I think were overlooked here: stealth and countermeasures. While even radar based AAA would have trouble with stealth aircraft, there’s not exactly any kind of countermeasures for good old fashioned flak fire. Missiles in addition to their failure ratings can be thrown off by chaff and flares (standard loadouts for most modern aircraft) at least long enough to get out of range of a second shot. Just a little tidbit I figured I’d add on. Always love watching your stuff!

Another reason why a shotgun isn't going anywhere, "PULL"

A 40mm Bofors could stop a lot of tracked IFV's, much less anything that flies.

I think not. They might need to adjust caliber for drones but drones are the new threat.

you need both (missiles, guns and radars) as part of an integrated air defense system with multiply layers of engagement

Makes me think of the dawn of the missile era in aviation. “They don’t need a gun because the missiles will handle every problem.” What was the funny looking thing that was mounted under the F-4 shortly after? A gun. Love the channel Matt!!

Well done, well thought out video.

Quite a bunch of footage of Austrian Army Oerlikon 35mm ZFLAK 85 on target practice somewhere abroad. Greetings from Austria.

The fact that some of the newer systems can shoot down things as small as a mortar makes them more useful since they can protect an area from artillery as well.

This is a question I’ve been wondering for quite some time now. Can’t wait to watch!

I would say no, as a helicopter pilot or a soldier on the ground the last thing I would wanna run across is a ZSU-23 (or anything along those lines) lmao

Wow! Amazing presentation. I’ve never thought about it that way. Drones definitely are worrisome.

As a former AD officer I’ve got to say you have most of it right, IMO. I really appreciated you even got the logistics point in there which internet geniuses in the comment section often ignore. Also drone threats are going to challenge current missiles. You are looking forward. But also, guns can now shoot missiles, and I think multiple warhead (think MIRV style) ATGMs are going to soon be a thing. Going to need to reach out and touch them before they separate. The level you are missing is that much of the debate gets decided by politics in the US Army. Both due to intra service competition as well as inter service competition. Also, the procurement system is rigged against AD just like it is CAS. Army Generals don’t want to spend money or use logistics assets on something they want the Air Force to deal with. It’s even worse, traditionally (unless things have changed) AD gets mostly the unwanted leftovers of the Academy along with the Chemical Corps (Some excellent officers choose it, but then they fill the slots with the remains) Also, the Air Force doesn’t want the “idiot ground pounders” shooting anything in the sky because it might be them. AD weapon systems rarely make it to the troops unless they are really cheap and evolutionary. They nearly killed Stinger in Congress by circular firing squad. First they say it’s too complex for the troops, then, they gave us the lowest scoring recruits out of spite! If you ask me, we would be better off if all the dedicated AD systems were Air Force and all the CAS systems (A-10, etc) were Army. Look at how they always want to dump the A-10. The Army generals aren’t afraid of losing soldiers to air attack, and the Air Force doesn’t worry about failure to provide CAS. Any incidents of failure are going to simply be blamed on the other service or lack of funding (which if granted will then be redirected towards the main missions of those services). Keep up the cool vids!

Another point to keep in mind is that the great majority of anti-aircraft system deployments are to around fixed positions to be protected, like urban areas and bases, even small forward bases. Many are also deployed on mobile systems to protect convoys of vehicles on the move. Rarely is an anti-aircraft system deployed with troops on the move at the front of the battlefield.

Honestly I was unfamiliar with the arguments for and against the removal of AA artillery. I had just assumed it was being phased out regardless. You brought up many points I had yet to consider and have given me quite a bit to think about. Won’t say you’ve entirely convinced me to one side but you definitely moved the needle for me and I found the arguments fascinating all the same. Great vid hope to see many more like it.

During wartime it was said that pilots didn't fear missiles as much as anti-aircraft battery fire because you can have a chance to jam a missile or out maneuver a missile but that's not the case with a wall of bullets or flak 💡🤔

Could you do a video on drone swarming technology? It's something that I think many would like. It's a very simple idea, but very complex in both theory and practice. You have a talent of presenting a large amount of information in a concise & easy to understand manner.

Guns should be part of a layered system of AA defense. In the US it should be THAAD then Patriot, then something similar to the old Hawk batteries then Stingers and mobile AA guns. Guns are especially important when dealing with drones, helicopters and can also be useful in hitting infantry in the open or even ripping apart APCs/IFVs. A 35mm chain gun will rip open most infantry vehicles quite easily. I still am a huge fan of how the Italians put a 76mm rapid fire gun on a tank chassis. Gave it radar and a high angle mounting.. That would be an ideal anti drone weapon now a days.

The thermal or FLIR clip where you can see the ammunition explosion and the pieces of shrapnel is awesome. You dont ever get to see artillery from that perspective! 👍🏼🤙🏼✊🏼✌🏼🤪🐎🪑🤮🌳🚪

Finally someone that's speaking my language. I think we've overengineered our anti-aircraft defenses these days. We could do a lot with Flak guns these days.

9:20 who else thought for a second that they will shoot the Birds flying in the background?

Last time I checked, only packing missiles is really nice, until you need to deal with nearby enemies

Cómo siempre un gusto escuchar tu opinión,gracias muy ilustrativa.

Wait some people honestly believe DAKA is obsolete!?!??!

No, theyre more important than ever. Its partly due to near-peers like Russia and China still maintaining an effective air fleet, but its also due to the proliferation of low-cost, easy-to-use unmanned aerial systems. Air defense(in this case more specifically SHORADs) remains a vital and integral part of any military planner's arsenal.

All thumbs up! Great job explaining the low-level aerial threat environment on postmodern battlefields. Can't argue with your conclusion: radar-guided flak is here to stay.

Love that Type 87 in the thumbnail.

You are absolutely right about missiles. Just look at the current shortage on chips and semiconductors in the market due to the pandemic. Now imagine that a war is breaking out with supply chains ruptured - where do you get on the long run sufficient components for complex technologies like missiles?

I could say the only way AAA becomes obsolete is the perfection of directed energy weapons. Directed energy weapons have the downside of requiring massive amounts of power but AAA requires lots of AMMO and would be no different than a power supply.

A sky full of lead will never be obsolete, great vid thanks.

1:40 as a sci fi nerd I can tell you lasers won't replace all CIWS even if we tried their actually very simple but horrifying solutions to counter lasers such as simply rolling, putting ultra white paint, ablative metal, etc their so many ways

If any AAA or SPAAG is engaging air targets that means the SAM systems or any/all other missile capable anti air systems in the network have failed. Plus you can have AAA near the front lines defend itself from infantry and LAV's. SAM systems wouldnt and arent capable of defending themselves close up to ground forces.

With the rising use of massed drone attacks that missiles are just wasted on and don't have the capacity to tale down, I thinl guns will see a resurgance if anything.

Still needed. If a war goes on for some time time then "older" technology will come into play. Ships have guns as last line of defence so why not on land? Falklands conflict had soldiers on deck firing rifles at incoming missile when radar lock was lost on Exocet that was incoming. Watched this on seconds from disaster documentary

An aspect uncovered: AAA was often used in ground combat starting in WWII. Remember guns up to 88mm were highly useful against ground targets, let alone all sorts of machine cannons. And that stayed through most major conflicts of my lifetime like the Falkland War (Goose Green for example) through the Balkan Wars to this day when ZSU-23s are engaged in urban warfare in Syria. Conventional FLAK is just versatile.

Those Oerlikons look so darn menacing. Amazing stuff from Rheinmetall, as per usual!

I agree with you. That is why, in the event of conflict, aircraft are very careful around the ZSU-23 Shilka. Radar on guns share the same vulnerabilities as radar in missile systems. ECM can ruin your day.

Ah, so that's why the Russian AA system has a radar, missiles and auto-cannons in one package. There was a scene in "Generation Kill" where an attack helicopter destroys an old AA auto-cannon tank (ZSU) from close range.

Imo having big guns that can spew out a huge rate of fire is never a bad idea

your videos are awesome

Short answer: No Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

13:20 is that my bae, I see? Shilka, the only lawn ornament I've ever wanted (not sure how my neighbors would feel about it, though). Something about the look of that thing I just love. I don't think AAA guns are (or should) go anywhere. Even as expensive as they can get, I think they are still likely much more cost effective for close range than missile system. Overlapping specialized systems with varying ranges just seems much better for any military that can afford it, rather than trying to find a "one size fits all" AAA solution.

It was a common belief in the late 50's and 60's that the days of aircraft dogfights with guns were over. Virtually everything would be beyond visual range with radar guided missiles, and what little close range combat there might be you'd have IR homers like Sidewinders. Things didn't work out that way, it turned out in Vietnam the missiles of that generation didn't work nearly as well as expected and those dogfights ended up happening quite often.

Bro I can wait until our military stats utilizing the Super Tucano from Brazil. I’ve been eying them for a while. A-10 and Super Tuc tuc in unison. Amazing.

We need high tech, medium tech, and low tech. Because it takes years to develop a high technology in a war you fight with what you have at the time.

Me an Ace Combat Player: I fear no missile... But that thing... ZSU-23-4 Me: It scares me!

5:33 yeah i was in awe of that scene… i mean, if a movie can decently imagine that swarm scene, then that tech is definitely available. Suicide Drones the size of small bikes swarming en mass is scary.

came back to this old gem to say, Gepards are back baby

I wonder if those “steel rain” type systems that use the caseless, primerless ammunition that can be triggered to exit the barrel in single file are going to become at least a PART of our anti aircraft strategy? Ive seen some video showing these systems doing horrendous damage despite their compact size.

Remember the Iranian Small Drones "IED's" that Massed on that Saudi Oil Refinery not too long ago.

I can’t help but ask, what’s that intro song?! It’s fire!!!

When there's a game of smart weapons vs countermeasures, nothing beats a dumb ol' piece of metal being shot at hundreds of miles an hour in a big curtain. Works on infantry too!

8:47 Lol. Just, because missiles are getting cheaper, it doesn't mean that the same thing can't apply for anti aircraft guns (not to mention the fact that both types of weapon systems can evolve at the same pace). One of the reasons weapons (of any type) get cheaper is, because they get produced in vast quantities. The more stuff, the less expensive it is. You could apply this same thing to AA gun shells, and they will still be magnitudes less expensive than missiles. Even if the missiles get overproduced in large quantities.

I think it falls in the same vane as when the US tried to make a multi role fighter without a cannon or gun. I think we will still need the guns they are just becoming less used but may still be necessary in some cases

Brilliant!!!! Great video

Rockets bring jets closer to ground where anti air guns have their range. Even if you dont hit the enemy, you make him reconsider few strafes and maybe even make him nervous enough to miss (im bascially citating Chieftain)

a 5.56mm bullet can destroy an ATGM with a single hit an ATGM travels subsonicly and you have more than 5 sec to engage on a range of 100-2000meters imagine MBTs equiped with ciws systems to deal with such threats in open areas a 5.56mm gatling gun can fire fast enough to almost guarantee the missile kill this 5.56mm gun will also be very useful as a main machinegun against infantry the main problem is the cost of the little ciws considering mass production it could be possible to equip these on mbts costing 3+million$

They would still be effective against CAS aircraft, undoubtedly.

Very relevant topic...

13:51 i like the idea that an AA capable gun with advanced targeting can be cost justified with appropriate ammo as your "do everything" cannon. It might be worth developing the various fire control systems and ammo for different threats in a modular way so you can dial up and down the cost around a common gun that you bolt things onto.