Why aren't Flak-guns used anymore?

[RagnarDa]

High-rate-of-fire guns are used as SHORAD and CIWS these days, but the Flak artillery seemed to be abandoned right after WWII. I recently saw a video of a German (I think) arms manufacturer that revisited the concept. They used a system of two guns and one radar. The muzzle velocity of the shell was measured by a laser in the barrel and the timer in the shell was set just before the shell exited the muzzle IIRC. I can't however find this video now. This had me intrigued because it was a clever solution. To me it would be very useful with for example dual-purpose artillery pieces. They could be guided by a off-board radar to bombard what ever that is flying near them as self-defence since scooting isn't always an option. Your thoughts?

[sobek]

Missiles are much more effective at medium to long range because they can alter their trajectory to accommodate flight path changes of the target.

[Aginor]

Actually those are still in use, they never ceased to exist.

In Vietnam they were used excessively, Iraq used then, and also Serbia if I am not mistaken.

 

They are old tech though, that's right. also without radar guidance you have problems hitting fast jets if you don't know they are coming and or don't have enough guns to fill a whole area of the sky with explosions.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Aginor

[RagnarDa]

Missiles are much more effective at medium to long range because they can alter their trajectory to accommodate flight path changes of the target.

Yes, ofcourse missiles win (except for economy) but I was thinking more in the line of replacing or complementing the guns that are used as short-range weapons. Vulcan, Goalkeeper, Kashtan... Many modern ships use a combination missiles and high-rate of fire guns as SHORAD but they don't use their regular artillery guns (which is often automatically loaded anyway) in this role. Why? Modern artillery units already use airbursting ammunition, so to me its more a matter of knowing where to point the gun (and fast enough) and setting the timer right. Any radar equipped nearby vehicle could provide this information.

[MBot]

I think it was primary the USN that abandoned Dual Purpose guns use since the Mk-45 to save mount wheight. Many other modern naval guns are still DP as evident by their high maxium elevation angles (all Soviet/Russian naval guns for example).

[sobek]

Yes, ofcourse missiles win (except for economy)

 

You might want to recheck that calculation when the first bomb hits a high value asset of yours. :)

 

Why?

 

Why use spray and pray when you can have hit to kill?

 

Edit: The reason why cannons are still used as CIWS is that missiles are largely ineffective at short ranges. In every other case, current projectile weapons are a waste of ressources.

Edited November 19, 2013 by sobek

[Aginor]

The advantage of those flak guns is that they are easy to use, it is not hard to train people for using them. Children can do it (and sadly have done it and probably still do it somewhere).

Also they are rather easy to build and maintain, compared to rockets, that's why they are cheap. They work in really bad conditions like high humidity (Vietnam, Korea) or deserts (Iraq, northern Africa) and you can also use them for ground combat (the eighty-eight flak gun was used for that in WWII for example).

 

EDIT: So they are widely used except in high-tech armies like the big western ones. Everyone else still has them and uses them.

 

EDIT2: Btw: I think both the US and the Royal Navy use flak guns against aircraft. Both the 4.5 inch mk8 naval gun (GB) and the 5 inch mark 45 gun (US) can fire flak ammo against aircraft.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Aginor

[maturin]

Flak guns are only effective against slowly-maneuvering targets at altitude. And notice how the huge formations of B-17s and B-24s would keep flying anyways? You need to keep shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting.

 

If you're talking about flak SPAAG targeting low-level aircraft, then modern jets will be moving so fast that you'll need to set a new fuse every split second. And after all that you'll get a handful of rounds off, instead of hundreds of 30mm shells. Some sort of high-tech autocannon round with a lot of dispersion and a proximity fuse could work, though.

[Aginor]

Flak guns are only effective against slowly-maneuvering targets at altitude.

That's not entirely accurate, in Vietnam several F-105s were shot down by such guns, and they were neither flying very high nor were they slow.

 

But yeah, in most cases you are right I guess.

[Isegrim]

The FLAK type Ammunition is still used for close area protection against Cruise missiles, missiles and Bombs.

Its Called AHEAD or AIRBURST.

 

Its almost the same like WWII FLAK with smaller Calibre, higher rate of fire and an automated travel timer for the shells.

 

EDIT: BTW FLAK (FLug Abwehr Kanone) means ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN or AAG so if you type FLAK GUN you´ve doubled the word GUN. (Sorry but i am German so had to say that.)

Edited November 19, 2013 by Isegrim

[Aginor]

EDIT: BTW FLAK (FLug Abwehr Kanone) means ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN or AAG so if you type FLAK GUN you´ve doubled the word GUN. (Sorry but i am German so had to say that.)

 

That confused the hell out of me when I first read it in some English source (I am German, too), they just don't know or care about flak originally being an abbreviation, they just use it as a word, and then they only use it for one of the types of AAA (only those with fragmentation ammo), and some use it even for other guns that aren't even used against aircraft, just because they use fragmentation ammo.

[Suchacz]

Bofors 40mm cannon with 3P ammunition - "Flak" gun of today :smilewink:

 

[GGTharos]

Depends on what you're shooting at. CIWS is now being replaced by SeaRAM because they need to react to a supersonic missile at longer ranges, and intercept and destroy it before it is close enough that significant fragments will impact the ship thanks to inertia.

 

Edit: The reason why cannons are still used as CIWS is that missiles are largely ineffective at short ranges. In every other case, current projectile weapons are a waste of ressources.

[sobek]

Well yes but that's just propelling your projectiles to a faster v0 to be able to hit the target further out (while it's doing it's funky approach dance). You're still in a spot where a missile would have way too little energy to maneuver and hit anything, that is the gap that needs filling by projectile weapons (or lasers or who knows what other stuff they are going to throw at it).

[tarracta]

High-rate-of-fire guns are used as SHORAD and CIWS these days, but the Flak artillery seemed to be abandoned right after WWII. I recently saw a video of a German (I think) arms manufacturer that revisited the concept. They used a system of two guns and one radar. The muzzle velocity of the shell was measured by a laser in the barrel and the timer in the shell was set just before the shell exited the muzzle IIRC. I can't however find this video now. This had me intrigued because it was a clever solution. To me it would be very useful with for example dual-purpose artillery pieces. They could be guided by a off-board radar to bombard what ever that is flying near them as self-defence since scooting isn't always an option. Your thoughts?

 

I think you mean the German MANTIS Air defense system.

 

 

In this Bundeswehr video it's promised to be the best AA-system ever made ;) ... but it's like all in Germany ... yes we have high tec, but whoa, we got 2 units running, for more there's no money...

 

I think the big advantage to rockets is that you can defend even hostile artillery grenades with it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by tarracta

[RagnarDa]

That's it! MANTIS+AHEAD. Thanks! I was beginning to think I made it up. :) There's also a video where the guns are positioned in every corner of a walled based, it looks like taken right out of the game Dune 2! I imagine the airbursting ammo gives it better PK at longer ranges compared to kinetic-kill only ammunition.

[Isegrim]

Bofors 40mm cannon with 3P ammunition - "Flak" gun of today :smilewink:

 

 

 

 

:mad:

[OutOnTheOP]

That confused the hell out of me when I first read it in some English source (I am German, too), they just don't know or care about flak originally being an abbreviation, they just use it as a word, and then they only use it for one of the types of AAA (only those with fragmentation ammo), and some use it even for other guns that aren't even used against aircraft, just because they use fragmentation ammo.

 

It's just one of those words that has taken a different evolution of meaning in English than in German. "Flak" is now an accepted English word: the etymology goes something along the lines that in WW2, pilots were briefed about FlaK in the proper context: German for anti-aircraft cannon. When under attack by AAA, they were "taking flak fire", which became just "taking flak".

 

The US then devised "flak jackets" to defend against the fragmentation from FlaK. Later down the line (starting in Korea, and with widespread dissemination in Vietnam), ground troops were issued fragmentation protective vests, and the name "flak jacket" came to refer to the vests for ground troops as well.

 

I've never heard anyone in the US military refer to fragments (IE, from a grenade) as "flak", though they do still call fragmentation vests "flak jackets". For that matter "taking flak" has become a euphemism for receiving criticism. Maybe it's derived from the similar notion of having an idea "shot down"? :D

 

By the same token, the phrase "shrapnel" these days is used wildly out of the original meaning: it originally referred to a very specific type of projectile, designed by Henry Shrapnel, which was much closer to the modern APERS round than to an HE-Frag projectile.

 

Just roll with it: every language has borrowed words. If you think English is bad about it, you should learn some Japanese. They really go hog wild on re-interpreting words!

[Isegrim]

I just wanted to say that the word GUN is almost integrated into the Word FLAK.

So there is no need to write or say FLAK GUN.

 

This is really anoying if your language is german.

 

Lets say for an example sentence : FLAK is replaced with AAG (Anti Aircraft GUN) this for now matches better as example than AAA.

 

So here is the Example:

 

OK : And the Germans did open fire with their AAG against the B17´s.

Wrong : And the Germans did open fire with their AAG GUNS against the B17´s.

 

AAG means ANTI AICRAFT GUN so there is no need to write or say ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN GUN.

 

So i hope now somebody did understand me.

 

ISE

[Aginor]

@OutOnTheOP:

Yeah, I know. It is still confusing for some people that know the original meaning (like Isegrim apparently).

And concerning Japanese: It works the other way round as well. In Germany there are quite a few guys who often use "Harakiri" (German word from Japanese) wrongly for example.

 

@Isegrim: We know that, but you have to see it the other way round: This is not the German abbreviation "FlaK" but the English word "flak" that descended from it. So since flak isn't an abbreviation anymore the "k" doesn't stand for gun anymore. It is confusing for us Germans, but that's the way it is. Such things are pretty common in English, which is full of words from other languages.

A bit OT but still cool: Here's a great video about it:

[OutOnTheOP]

@OutOnTheOP:

Yeah, I know. It is still confusing for some people that know the original meaning (like Isegrim apparently).

And concerning Japanese: It works the other way round as well. In Germany there are quite a few guys who often use "Harakiri" (German word from Japanese) wrongly for example.

 

@Isegrim: We know that, but you have to see it the other way round: This is not the German abbreviation "FlaK" but the English word "flak" that descended from it. So since flak isn't an abbreviation anymore the "k" doesn't stand for gun anymore. It is confusing for us Germans, but that's the way it is. Such things are pretty common in English, which is full of words from other languages.

A bit OT but still cool: Here's a great video about it:

 

Exactly- it's kind of like how radar and laser are now considered proper English words, and not just acronyms.