Why aren't AA tanks used against infantry too?

It can go down much it seems. Could be bad if there is a guy with a RPG too close.

Attached: 1567382391154.jpg (1000x665, 468K)

>infantry are only ever below you

[hysterical mountain and hill laughter increases to an alarming volume]

Lol.
RPG rockets take distance to arm. If he fired that close the round wouldn't be live and would simply bounce off.
OTOH, the muzzle blast from that cannon would proably burst that poor sod's head.

Because you don't want to risk a multi-million dollar radar and fire control system to some dickhead with a $500 RPG-7

Even if the gun systems cannot do good negative depression, in a pinch you can put them on a slope and or pull out of your hide a little and get the same effect. Pretty much every non-missile AA I know has a method to engage ground targets.

Nearly every SPAAG ever built has been designed with the explicit intention that it must be able to fire at low angles to engage infantry and light vehicles if necessary.

>120 rounds per minute. 1 per second.
...

Just as stupid and unrealistic as using a 8.8cm Flak against tanks.
Who would even think about doing something like that?

i meant to type two. But man, imagine having fire support provided by 76mm Dracos and 120mm Centauros instead of....Stryker Mobile Gays.

Imagine having your AA gun unable to shoot at helicopters anymore because they landed and are currently dropping troops off.

This thread is fucking retarded and OP should consider ironic suicide.

>Pretty much every non-missile AA I know has a method to engage ground targets.

I was playing some PR a while ago, and while sitting inside a Stinger AA emplacement, I had to fire at a truck of some kind. Instead of getting off the AA and shooting small arms at it, I figured an AA missile wouldn't do 'nothing' so I shot one.

The truck fucking exploded, like it got hit by a fucking TOW. Since then I always wondered how effective an AA missile would be vs. light vics and infantry. I thought that most AA missiles actually exploded when they got close to a plane, rather then worrying about direct hits, and shower the thing it shrapnel. Is this only effective in the air because the missile is actively being "locked" or guided to a target ?

Has anyone ever had to do this IRL ? Is it even possible ? I have so many questions..

Actually using AA against armor has a bit of tradition. And given the choice between dying and trying for a lucky shot most soldiers will give it a try. Any gun capable to engaging aircraft has velocity or ROF on its side. Either option gives you a fair chance against all but the best armor. ROF can scrub off antennas, wreck optics, wipe off all the external gear, make reactive armor fire off or fail. Making the tank a mission kill means its sitting it out for a bit. And if you catch them unbuttoned you will really teach them a lesson. And reducing the situational awareness of tankers is a very good thing if you are fighting them. Any supporting infantry will try to use any advantage.

Anyone using AA missile to hit ground targets would face court martial.

An AA missile is 15 times more expensive than a ground missle.

>Anyone using AA missile to hit ground targets would face court martial.

Fuck off retard

I was trolling, the 8,8 cm Flak was used extensively against tanks in WW2

Ever heard of the Terminator?

Attached: file.png (800x516, 735K)

Tell and show me more.

Google it you dumb faggot

Faggot. You posted a picture and a common nickname

In Afghanistan they were by the Soviets.

Attached: 1567061179501.png (450x768, 51K)

youtube.com/watch?v=pOBTaA_QCg8

There's also this pic of it in Syria, but no footage of actual combat.

Attached: file.png (960x540, 728K)

It's not an AA vehicle, dingus. It lacks the necessary fire control.

Thank you

Doesnt stop It from from gunning down helicopters.

M42 Duster (basically an M41 chassis with a dual-Bofors 40mm turret was well regarded in Vietnam. It was mobile enough for their shitty roads, fairly well armored for the theater and survived mines well. Also, the fuzes on the 40mm rounds were found to be sensitive enough that firing into a jungle treeline they were probably all going to go off pretty close. They were used as convoy escorts and as fixed emplacements at firebases.

just about any IFV could theoretically shoot down a helicopter, that doesn't make it an AA vehicle. It's designed primarily to take on infantry and ground vehicles.

That's a consideration for pretty much every SPAA

Pretty sure VADS have fucked some crunchies up b4

Attached: E7AA71CE-029E-4BA5-8227-F3CD59ED3554.png (800x361, 416K)

>theoretically
It started life as a FlaK - Flugabvehrkanon - fucking literally anti aircraft gun.
But it wasn't the gun itself that made it great, they had many other good antitank guns, it was the mount which could traverse full 360° and both elevate and depress at quite good angles which made it so loved by Nazis and feared by anything staring down the barrel.
Most antitank guns Germans had were on classic mounts with only a few degrees of traverse, so you needed to keep moving them if the enemy popped out outside the cone. The 88 you just had to deploy and then traverse like a merry-go-round.
Being so overkill at the time also helped, as it could basically shreck everything that could move over land under its own power well over 1km away.

The SA-75 (and SA-125) can engage ground targets in an emergency as well despite being a (large) misile - only system.

>lacks fire control
Ummm, no?
It lacks search and track radars, but the laser rangefinder can easily deal with slower moving aircraft, especially choppers.

>Flugabvehrkanon
Flugabwehrkanone

Infantry have this habit of being difficult to see and hiding behind cover. You are using a specialized weapon as a heavy machine gun or autocannon.

It works, it happened. More of a situational requirement than something you would plan for normally.

They were mostly used as such actually. Soviet even modified Shilkas so they are more effective in that role.

Afghanistan, syria, chechnya...all used for it there

At best they'd be lectured if more efficient munitions were ignored. But we arent seriously hurting for funds or munitions at the moment

Attached: th (1).jpg (160x158, 5K)

The Stinger does have 3 kg HE warhead, which is more than enough for light targets

>>effective an AA missile would be vs. light vics and infantry.

Depends entirely on what kind of missle we're talking about. Early missiles were high explosive with fragmentation, that would certainly take out troops or lightly armored vehicles. Some modern ones are a bit strange though. Many have a warhead containing a bunch of metal rods welded into a zigzag sort of shape. That's great for shooting down high speed aircraft where all you need to do is damage them a little bit and then watch them crash but probably wouldn't be of too much use against infantry. Sure you might kill some people but just about any other sort of warhead would be much better. Same thing applies to the Brit Starstreak missile, which contains 3 small darts.

>? I have so many questions..
Why? Just read the specs on various missiles and you will learn what their warheads are. You can compare that to other weapons for a point of comparison.

They do it all the time in civil wars, Libya, Yemen, Syria. There's even plenty of technicals with AA guns on them

Def seen a gif of one being used in Syria to hose a few buildings down.

>(fires a round into the RPG guy)

Now what?

Attached: 882f0fd2.jpg (552x414, 35K)

they are, it's the only thing they're useful for

Attached: a.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

They literally were used in Groznyi due to MBTs and IFVs having shit time hitting people on rooftops/high stories.

>fairly well armored for the theater
please explain this

Tanks didn't do so well in the jungles of Vietnam. The army rarely even tried to make use of them. Lighter vehicles were more prominent.

>Tanks didn't do so well in the jungles of Vietnam. The army rarely even tried to make use of them.
ehhhhhh

This.

They were.

It was fucking horrible.

Shilkas tore Afghan men and their shitty camels apart.

This.
>putting your SPAAGs in danger by having them up front shooting infantry
Use an IFV.

They do it very well. The main problem is the light Armour, They look like a heavy tank but the a turrent armour is as lite as a BTR.

Is this s troll thread what next
Why don't they but Armour on tanks?

A SPAAG has to be pretty near the front to do its job. It might not deliberately seek out enemy infantry by choice, but the odds of encountering enemy infantry by chance are pretty high.

We used M19s (2x40mm Bofors) against gook human waves in the Korean war.
Turned them into fucking sloppy joe

Is continuous-rod still common? I thought that most warheads, even Sidewinders since the -9J, had moved back to blast-frag?

It's blast frag ever since we have the computers to model how the fragmentation spreads. Continuous rod was just a brute force way to control the spread of the damage zone.
It's why modern russian warheads have fragments that look like tiny butterflies.

>tfw no SPAAbrams

Attached: AGDS-1.png (1003x808, 412K)

>Abrams SPAAG with missiles and twin 35mm guns would have utterly kicked ass
>gets canceled after USSR collapses, so no need for air defense
>missile continues development for another year, then gets canceled also
>Abrams with 140mm gun with over 50% greater penetration was scheduled to become the M1A3, even before the M1A2 officially entered production
>canceled due to lack of threat of godless commie hordes pouring through Fulda Gap
>Wasp missile consisted of a pod of 10 anti-tank missiles that all simultaneously launched, locked onto an individual target, and blew it up
>Warthog would have been able to carry four Wasp pods, making a single plane capable of shooting 40 vehicles simultaneously, wiping out an entire armored column in a single pass
>it worked, but the computers were so expensive it got canceled without the threat of Warsaw Pact tank divisions driving westward
>HK G11K2 was functional, officially adopted by the West German army, and ready for mass production
>Berlin Wall falls
>"We can either buy the G11, or rebuild Germany"
>kraut space magic is shelved forever
>Project Thor would have given us the ability to bomb shit from orbit, dropping crowbar-sized tungsten rods that could take out a tank, or a telephone pole-sized rod that could hit with the power of a tactical nuke, minus radiation
>can hit any point on the planet within minutes of deciding to strike, projectiles impossible to shoot down and barely detectable before impact
>Brilliant Pebble used same idea, but to shoot down ICBM's, aircraft, and cruise missiles before they reached their targets
>both worked, but with collapse of USSR both got canceled due to expense

If the fucking commies could have just held out for a few more years, we'd have gotten some seriously awesome shit.

Attached: sample-55633861b32f1b690340ada18e0f37ff.jpg (703x1000, 161K)

>>Abrams with 140mm gun with over 50% greater penetration

Attached: Stop.jpg (800x479, 59K)

OP is an absolute faggot and sucks nigger dick on a regular basis

youtube.com/watch?v=idUO16hqDWs
youtube.com/watch?v=HLgqoNympR4
youtube.com/watch?v=sNBjsyz3iyU
youtube.com/watch?v=5oKtZOB4iN8

>youtube.com/watch?v=idUO16hqDWs

>those cars and trucks just passing through down range
Jesus that'd be terrifying

I can't believe no one posted this yet
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

>In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs.
>When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover.

Attached: Skynet Mark I.jpg (1515x1129, 690K)

If the emplacement gets overrun then you have to destroy the missiles anyway to stop the enemy from using them.

The Type 87 is equipped with a hydropneumatic suspension allowing it to lean the hull.

It can depress its guns more than a regular tank.

If you're that close then it can just drive forward and crush you.

based retards

this

Attached: type 87 depression.jpg (1920x2160, 977K)

My great-grandfather was the gunner on an M3 half track that had a quad fifty. He never shot at a single aircraft, but got to tear up plenty of German bunkers, when he wasn’t molesting little Jewish girls from Poland that is.

Attached: E0FEB13E-A522-4F3D-A5FC-ACECFE595B51.jpg (493x252, 27K)

They are not meant for engaging targets with the intention to kill, but more so as AOE denial systems - basically, to scare the enemy aerial support to higher altitudes, where it can be engaged with more effective weapons.

because the ZOG machine hates whites and invented a bunch of war "crimes" so that whites wouldn't be allowed to fight mudraces properly.

This. It's most effective against aircraft flying nape-of-Earth and most SPAA setups also have SAMs for higher flying targets.

Engaging ground forces with autocannons has never been a warcrime.

The only remotely applicable law is the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and only if the projectiles are under 400 grams (about 0.9 pounds) and only if your country signed it.

>radar guided twin 35mm autocannons
>designed to scare

Attached: M-42 Twin 40s.webm (654x480, 2.94M)

>stupid and unrealistic as using a 8.8cm Flak against tanks
uh rommel used them to great effect in north africa, knocked out burger and bong tanks by the score
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41#Support_of_ground_troops

>immediately points its guns at the biggest threat to freedom
Based M247. The computer must have been containing Benjamin Franklin's brain in a jar or something.

Attached: wh40k_dreadnought__front__by_baryonyx62-d5b7f74.jpg (1032x774, 154K)

Honestly the only proper way to use AA.

Attached: 126-127.png (2262x1600, 2.25M)

Man why hasn't anyone put pointy knifes at the end of a rifle barrel yet? It sure would be convenient having your rifle double as a spear while getting caught when reloading wouldn't it?

I like how it looked like something out of Warhammer 40k.

Nickname "Meat grinder" doesn't came from nowhere

>I never saw one picture where it showed any of those vehicles could traverse those guns downward
You've never seen a shilka used in Syria? They use it literally all the time against infantry.

they are

Is...is this sarcasm? It sounds like sarcasm but I've met people who are stupid enough to say this unironically.

Without radar guidance autocannons aren't even a threat. As it stands, radar guided guns force the enemy to make evasive maneuvers every couple seconds. Not big ones but enough that it hurts their accuracy.

Search South Korean army videos on YouTube. Lots of footage of mechanized AA firing directly.

Attached: radar guided AAA stream.gif (286x225, 1.17M)

If a fucking AA gun gets into a position where it can directly fire at ground targets, there are more pressing concerns than efficient use of ammunition

would have been a gold plated turd like the Sgt York

what happens when a 40mm round hits a man?

man, that sounds like the life

> Hydropneumatic
I thought hydraulic and pneumatic were two different things. One utilizing liquid pressure and one using air pressure. Is there really such a thing as hydropneumatic? Am I just a fucking retard? So many questions.

>Am I just a fucking retard?
since you're apparently incapable of performing a simple internet search, my vote is "aye"

Just park going downhill, lmao