Military Review

American post-war anti-aircraft artillery. 2-Part I

27



Despite the fact that the US military has fallen interest in anti-aircraft artillery, the development of new anti-aircraft installations of medium and small caliber in the postwar period has not ceased. In 1948, the 75-mm M35 automatic turret-type anti-aircraft gun was created in the USA. The ammunition of this gun when firing was automatically replenished with a special loader. Because of this, the practical rate of fire was 45 rds / min, which was an excellent indicator for a towed anti-aircraft gun of this caliber. The appearance of automatic 75-mm anti-aircraft guns was due to the fact that during World War II there was a difficult range for anti-aircraft artillery from 1500 to 3000 m. Here, the planes were not very accessible for light anti-aircraft guns, and for heavy anti-aircraft guns this height was too small. In order to solve the problem, it seemed natural to create anti-aircraft guns of some intermediate caliber.

Due to the fact that reactive combat aviation in the post-war period, it developed at a very rapid pace, the army command put forward the demand that the new anti-aircraft gun mount be able to deal with airplanes flying at a speed of 1600 km / h at an altitude of up to 6 km. However, to withstand such stringent requirements was unrealistic, and the maximum speed of the effectively fired target was subsequently limited to 1100 km / h. It is clear that manual data input about target parameters at a speed close to sound would be absolutely inefficient, therefore, in the new anti-aircraft installation, a combination of search and guidance radar with an analog computer was used. All this rather cumbersome economy combined with the artillery unit. The T-38 radar with a parabolic antenna was mounted in the upper left part of the gun mount. Guidance was carried out by electric drives. The gun had an automatic installer of remote fuses, which significantly increased the effectiveness of firing. Tests conducted in 1951-1952 demonstrated the operability of guidance equipment and the ability to detect and track air targets at ranges up to 30 km. The maximum firing range reached 13 km, and effective was 6 km.


M51 Skysweeper


In March, the 1953 of the year, the 75-mm automatic radar-guided anti-aircraft gun, known as M51 Skysweeper, began to enter the ground forces anti-aircraft units. These gun mounts were located at stationary positions along with 90 and 120-mm anti-aircraft guns. The translation of the M51 into a combat situation was quite troublesome. In the stowed position, the anti-aircraft gun was transported on a four-wheeled carriage, on arrival at the firing position it fell to the ground and rested on four cross-shaped supports. To achieve combat readiness, it was necessary to connect power cables and warm up the guidance equipment.

At the time of the appearance of the 75-mm gun mount M51 in its caliber had no equal in range, firing rate and accuracy of fire. At the same time, complex and expensive hardware required skilled maintenance, was quite sensitive to mechanical stress and meteorological factors, and mobility did not meet modern requirements. In the second half of the 50-x, anti-aircraft missiles began to create fierce competition for anti-aircraft guns, and therefore the service of the 75-mm anti-aircraft guns, coupled with guidance radars, in the US military was not long. Already in 1959, all anti-aircraft battalions, armed with 75-mm guns, were deactivated, but история installations M51 this is not over. As usual, not necessary to the American army weapon It was transferred to the allies. In Japan and in a number of European countries, 75-mm anti-aircraft guns served at least until the start of the 70-x.


ZSU T249 Vigilante


In 1956, testing of the T249 Vigilante began. This self-propelled self-propelled gun was intended to replace the 40-mm towed automatic machines Bofors and ZSU М42. Armed with an 37-mm rapid-fire six-barreled cannon (3000 rds / min) with a rotating block of T250 barrels, the Vigilant ZSU, unlike Daxter, with its 40-mm Bofors hopper with cassette loader, had a radar for detecting air targets. The base was the elongated chassis of the M113 armored personnel carrier.

American post-war anti-aircraft artillery. 2-Part I

Upgraded version ZSU T249, created to participate in the competition DIVAD


However, in the late 50s, the US military, fascinated by anti-aircraft missiles, did not show much interest in the new anti-aircraft artillery installation, considering that the air defense systems based on guns were outdated, and canceled further funding for the T249 in favor of the MIM-46 Mowler short-range air defense system , which, however, for a number of reasons did not enter service. Later, in the mid-70s, the Sperry Rand development company attempted to revive this project by installing a six-barreled anti-aircraft machine converted to a 35-mm projectile (NATO 35x228 mm) in an aluminum tower on the chassis tank M48. But this option was not successful, having lost the competition ZSU M247 "Sergeant York."

The experience of combat operations gained in large-scale armed conflicts in Southeast Asia and the Middle East demonstrated that it is too early to discard small-caliber rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, since anti-aircraft missile systems are not always able to cover their troops from attack aircraft operating on small heights. In addition, anti-aircraft artillery installations with significant ammunition are much cheaper than air defense systems, they are less susceptible to organized interference and, if necessary, are capable of firing at ground targets.

In the middle of 1960's, General Electric, together with the Rock Island Arsenal, created two models of anti-aircraft systems to meet the needs of the US Army. In both, the same 20-mm six-barreled gun was used, which is the development of the Aviation Series M61.

The towed unit, designated the M167, was to replace the 12,7-mm ЗПУ NXXX in the troops. This anti-aircraft gun was intended primarily for airborne and airborne units. For example, the 55 Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Bragg in 82-70, had an anti-aircraft division consisting of a headquarters and four batteries. Each battery, in turn, consists of a headquarters and three fire platoons with 80 M4 installations in each.


Towed anti-aircraft installation M167


The six-barrel 20-mm gun "Volcano" with a belt power system, an electrically operated turret and a fire control system mounted on a two-wheeled towed carriage. According to its concept, the M167 charger corresponds to the 12,7-mm towed installation M55. Aiming an antiaircraft gun at the target and the rotation of the barrel assembly during firing is also carried out by electric drives powered from batteries. To charge the battery is a gasoline unit, located in the front of the vehicle. The fire control system M167 consists of a radio range finder, located to the right of the gun, and a gyro sight with a counter-resolver. Ammunition - 500 shells. For firing, shots with fragmentation-incendiary and armor-piercing tracer shells weighing 0,2 kg and initial velocity 1250 m / s are used. The maximum range of shooting - 6 km, when shooting at aerial targets flying at speeds of 300 m / s - 2 km. Field shooting has repeatedly demonstrated that the highest probability of hitting a target is achieved at a distance of up to 1500 m. The M167 can be towed by a light-duty truck M715 (4x4) or a multi-purpose off-road vehicle M998, and also be transported on an external suspension by helicopter. The weight in the combat position is 1570 kg, the calculation is 4 person.



Anti-aircraft guns can fire with tempo: 1000 and 3000 shots / min. The first is usually used for firing at ground targets, the second at air targets. You can choose a fixed queue length: 10, 30, 60 or 100 shells. At the moment, towed units M167 are not used by the US armed forces, but are still available in the armies of other states.


ZSU M163


Self-propelled version of the installation received the designation M163, this ZSU created on the basis of a tracked BTR M113A1. In connection with the increased weight of the machine, additional panels are installed on the upper front sheet and sides, increasing the buoyancy of the machine. Like the base M113 armored personnel carrier, the ZNX M163 could swim across water obstacles by swimming. Movement on the water was carried out by rewinding the tracks. On roads with hard surfaces ZSU, weighing 12,5 t, could accelerate to 67 km / h. In terms of its firing characteristics, the self-propelled version is identical to the towed unit, but due to the significant internal volumes of the armored personnel carrier, the ammunition unit has been increased several times and makes 1180 shots directly ready for firing, and 1100 in stock. Aluminum hull armor with a thickness of 12-38 mm provides protection against bullets and shrapnel, but the gunner is protected only by an armored “hood” from the rear hemisphere.



The rotation of the turret and the aiming of the gun in a vertical plane in the range of angles from -5 ° to + 80 ° is carried out with the help of high-speed electric drives. In case of their failure, there are manual guidance mechanisms. The radar range AN / VPS-2 with a range of up to 5 km and accuracy of measurement ± 10 m is installed on the right of the tower. When working according to target designation data taken over the air, the target is detected visually and is captured to track with an optical sight, which focuses the radio-range antenna on it . Targeting is usually carried out from the radar detection of low-flying targets AN / MPQ-49, which was part of the mixed anti-aircraft divisions "Chaparel-Vulcan".

However, at the end of 70-x ZSU M163 no longer fully complied with modern requirements. Anti-aircraft guns were criticized due to the small effective firing range and the lack of detection of air targets on the radar machine. In the second half of the 80-s, a significant part of the Vulkan installations, both self-propelled and towed, underwent upgrades under the PIVADS program. After upgrading the fire control system, the radio range finder was able not only to determine the distance to the target, but also to automatically track it in range and angular coordinates. In addition, the gunner received a helmet-mounted sighting device, with which the radar antenna was automatically focused on the observed target for subsequent tracking. Thanks to the introduction of new armor-piercing shells with a separating pallet into ammunition, the range of fire at air targets increased to 2600 m.

In the United States, the Zapu M163, along with the MIM-72 SAMs Chaparrel, were in service with anti-aircraft divisions of mixed composition. In 70-ies, the Chaparel-Vulkan airfield was an important link in the air defense system of the army corps and was the main means of fighting low-flying targets. The M163 batch production was carried out by General Electric since 1967, the 671 ZSU of this type was produced in total. They were in service with the US Army anti-aircraft units until the end of the 90-s. After that, the Chaparel-Vulkan system was replaced by the M1097 “Evanger” air defense system, which uses the FIM-92 “Stinger” SAM.

The short range of effective fire 20-mm towed and self-propelled anti-aircraft installations, the impossibility of all-weather use, the absence of an armored turret and target detection radar caused the US Army to launch a divisional defense anti-aircraft installation in the middle of the 70-s. level The emergence of this program is due to the fact that the US military was seriously concerned about the increased capabilities of the Soviet fighter-bombers and front-line bombers capable of operating effectively at low altitudes, where anti-aircraft missiles were ineffective. In addition, combat helicopters Mi-24, armed with anti-tank missiles with a launch range exceeding the effective range of the Vulcan anti-aircraft guns, appeared in the USSR. After the start of deliveries to the troops of the M1 Abrams and the Bradley BMP M2, the American military faced the fact that the ZNU M163 and the MIM-72 Chaparrel simply did not have time for new vehicles and could not provide anti-aircraft protection. Evidence that modern ZSU can be a serious threat to military aviation, was the experience of battles in the Middle East. Israeli pilots, trying to avoid the defeat of anti-aircraft missiles, went to low-altitude flights, and at the same time suffered significant losses from the ZSU-23-4 Shilka.

Five ZSU armed with anti-aircraft machine guns caliber 30-40 mm took part in the competition DIVAD. They all had radar detection and tracking. In May 1981, the winner was the installation of Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation. ZSU received the official name of "Sergeant York" (in honor of Sergeant Alvin York, the hero of the First World War) and the M247 index. The contract worth $ 5 billion provided for the supply of 618 ZSU for 5 years.

The new anti-aircraft self-propelled gun turned out to be not easy, its weight in the combat position was 54,4 T. The base for the MNNXX anti-aircraft installation was the chassis of the M247-48 tank. In 5's, the M80 tanks were already considered obsolete, but a significant number of M48A48 tanks were available at the storage bases. Using the chassis of these tanks was supposed to reduce the cost of production ZSU. A turret with two 5-mm anti-aircraft guns was mounted in the center of the hull. On the roof of the tower there are two radar antennas: on the left is a round-shaped tracking radar antenna, and a flat target radar antenna at the back. The detection radar was a modified AN / APG-40 station used on the F-66A / B fighter aircraft. Both antennas could be folded to reduce the height of the ZSU on the march. The crew of the car - three people. The gunner is located on the left side of the tower, and the commander is on the right, each seat is equipped with a separate hatch. The gunner has a sight with a laser rangefinder, the commander’s place is equipped with a panoramic observation device. The guidance system is fully automatic, without the possibility of mechanical control. 16-mm twin guns have electric vertical guidance, the turret rotates 40 °. Each gun is equipped with a separate magazine, ammunition is 360 projectile.


ZSU M247


The 40-mm guns used in the M247 had serious differences from the Bofors X-NUMX-mm anti-aircraft guns previously used in the US military. Armament ZSU consisted of two automatic guns L40 Swedish development, which were specially modified for ZSU. The L70 cannon uses 70 × 40 mm R high-power shots with an initial speed 364 kg of projectile - 0.96 – 1000 m / s, survivability of the 1025 barrel shots. When creating the L4000, priority was given not to the rate of fire, but to the high accuracy of firing in short bursts. Technical rate of fire per gun - 70 rds / min. The range of destruction of air targets - 240 m.

Despite winning the competition, the adoption of the ZNU M247 into service caused a storm of criticism. It was pointed out that the machine needs to be refined, the radio-electronic complex is not functioning reliably, and the combat effectiveness is questionable. An indirect recognition of this can be considered the intention of the developer to install on the turret as an additional weapon of the FIM-92 “Stinger” SAM. In addition, the outdated M48А5 chassis could not keep up with the new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. All this was the reason for the closure of the production of the Sergeant York ZSU M247 in August 1985. Until then, the American industry managed to build 50 machines. Due to the numerous shortcomings, the army refused them, and most of the M247 was used at the air test sites as targets. At present, there are four copies of the ZSU in the museums.

After the epic with the DIVAD program, the American army no longer attempted to use anti-aircraft artillery systems. Moreover, significant reductions in the 90-e years were subjected to anti-aircraft missile units. The US military abandoned the Hawk 21 air defense system, which was heavily invested in upgrading. As already mentioned, the mixed Chaparrel-Vulcan anti-aircraft divisions were replaced with M1097 “Evanjer” air defense systems on the M988 “Hummer” chassis, which, of course, cannot be considered a full-fledged replacement, since the Hummers are seriously inferior to the tracked vehicle. However, recently the US Army has cooled off to anti-aircraft systems. LAW Patriot PAC-3 do not carry combat duty in the United States. In Germany, the American contingent has only four Patriot batteries, which also do not have constant readiness. Anti-aircraft systems are deployed only in potentially missile-dangerous regions to protect American bases from North Korean, Iranian and Syrian ballistic missiles. Ensuring air defense from the enemy's strike aircraft in the theater of operations is assigned primarily to US Air Force fighters.

Based on:
http://zonwar.ru/index.html
http://russian-tanks.com
Author:
Articles from this series:
American post-war anti-aircraft artillery. 1-Part I
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 August 2016 13: 41
    10
    It seems that the Americans simply scored on the air defense of the SV. "Avenger" does not look at all serious, against the background of the clear structure of the air defense of the Soviet army, where at each level there is an air defense system of its own type. And today this "Avenger" is generally not clear where and how it is in service - in the states of the HBCT they are not at all. On the other hand, the Americans can afford - no one except the PRC or the Russian Federation will be able to bomb them, and it seems that the United States does not plan to fight the PRC or the Russian Federation. But we should not relax. The anti-aircraft battalion of our brigades is like a combined hodgepodge - the Tungusok battery, the TOR battery and the MANPADS battery. They stuffed everything that was in the divisions. How to manage this motley team is not clear.
    1. Leto
      Leto 1 September 2016 08: 33
      +1
      The geographical position of the United States allows us not to work on the topic of military air defense seriously, but in Europe during the Cold War the NATO countries had enough of it, so there was no point in adding their own.
    2. Professor
      Professor 4 September 2016 10: 58
      +3
      It seems that the Americans just scored on the anti-aircraft defense.

      And they did it right. Defense is the lot of the weak, the strong attack. And again: "The best air defense is our tanks on enemy airfields."
  2. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 August 2016 13: 41
    +4
    The Americans "sluggishly" were engaged in anti-aircraft artillery because their army always fights in conditions of air superiority and they practically did not face an air threat (only if in the navy, fighting anti-ship missiles). In our country, the situation is the opposite, and in all local wars we were intensively trained with the latest means of destruction. Hence the decent success in air defense, and at all ranges and echelons.
    In documentaries, the Americans "Very Warmly" speak of the "Shilka" system, apparently it has patted them quite hard.
    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 2 September 2016 04: 43
      +2
      [quote] The Americans "sluggishly" were engaged in anti-aircraft artillery because their army always fights in conditions of air superiority and they practically did not encounter an air threat / quote] [quote] [/ quote

      So they always created this superiority, first suppressed the enemy air force and did not endanger their ground forces with air strikes. And you didn’t come across an air threat, you turned it down, if you do not take Korea into account, then there have been quite intense air battles since Vietnam.

      [quote] We have the opposite situation / quote]

      The opposite, does this mean the USSR and later the Russian Federation came up against opponents with a powerful air force ?? In my opinion, in Afghanistan, Chechnya did not smell any Air Force.

      It is necessary to take into account the Amer army in a context with the whole of NATO, and there were quite serious machines, such as the Geppards.
  3. Bongo
    31 August 2016 13: 47
    +9
    Quote: Alex_59
    It seems that the Americans just scored on the anti-aircraft defense.

    In the past, and after the victory in the Cold War, the USA in particular began to stake on gaining air supremacy. It is precisely this and the defeat of enemy airfields with the help of the CD that should provide protection from air strikes to its own troops and facilities. The Americans were greatly impressed by the Soviet P-17s during Desert Storm. This can partly explain the obvious bias towards anti-missile systems.
    1. avt
      avt 31 August 2016 14: 33
      +6
      In the past, and after the victory in the Cold War, the United States in particular began to stake on gaining air supremacy.
      Well, something like that. From impunity all this. Again, they clearly show that they were not going to contact with adults, well, with those who have decent turntables.
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 31 August 2016 14: 41
      +6
      The Americans were greatly impressed by the Soviet P-17s during Desert Storm. This can partly explain the obvious bias towards anti-missile systems.

      Sergei! Thank. Interesting. Especially interesting about the 75mm revolving guns. I have not even heard of such ones. And the problems with the lamp equipment apparently served as one of the reasons for the transfer of our air defense systems to the hospital. Also had a headache, after relocation. Everything or almost everything had to be re-configured.
  4. 52
    52 31 August 2016 16: 21
    +5
    Good articles, thanks!
  5. Ruby
    Ruby 31 August 2016 22: 06
    +5
    Seriously from the air, no one has pressed Americans since the forties. They probably only suffered from the Japanese, and then not for long. No one bombed their cities, they never fought in conditions where air supremacy was not on their side. On the genetic level, however, we still have the memory of war and bombing, and we remember very well what the superiority of the enemy in the air is. Not for nothing that Stalin immediately after the war put on a par with the creation of nuclear weapons and modern air defense.
  6. sivuch
    sivuch 1 September 2016 10: 52
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    It seems that the Americans just scored on the air defense

    Yes, not that completely scored. There were fluttering, but not always successful. It is enough to recall Mowler and Sergeant. There was a lot of money in them. They also made a self-propelled version of I-Hawk. In addition, there was a number of programs, for example, FOG-M, if sclerosis does not change.
    And with the current air defense brigade, it’s really, incomprehensible. It used to be clear that there is a regimental level, with Shilki, S-10 and Tunguska, and there is a divisional one with Wasps or Torahs.
    And now, someone would explain what the purpose of the ZDA differs from the ZRDN
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 September 2016 10: 24
      0
      There was also the notorious ADATS (winner of the FAAD competition). In the West Military District, pomnitsa, it was signed that this complex was about to go into service with the US Army, replacing both the M163 and the Cheparella. And sho? And where is that ADATS? smile
  7. sivuch
    sivuch 1 September 2016 11: 38
    +1
    In principle, the American air defense was already here
    http://doktorkurgan.livejournal.com/tag/%D0%97%D0%A1%D0%A3
    I didn’t see any special mistakes
    and here
    http://doktorkurgan.livejournal.com/36337.html
  8. Kars
    Kars 3 September 2016 01: 02
    +8
    All the same, the new design is poor) I saw an article on a topic that interests me only through Yandex Zen)
  9. Bongo
    5 September 2016 07: 45
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    And they did it right. Defense is the lot of the weak, the strong attack. And again: "The best air defense is our tanks on enemy airfields."

    Oleg, does it seem to me or is it really that you treat air defense in general and air defense systems in particular with some warning? In my opinion, armament should be both offensive and defensive. In the United States, there is a clear bias towards offensive weapons systems, which may one day "come out sideways." But in other matters, these are their problems, and we can only be glad that the Americans are "stupid". In Israel, this approach is not shared, by density modern SAMs per unit area you are probably in first place in the world.
    1. Professor
      Professor 5 September 2016 11: 19
      +1
      Oleg, does it seem to me, or indeed, that you are with some kind of warning about air defense in general and to air defense systems in particular? In my opinion, weapons should have both offensive and defensive means.

      I am not against defense as such and air defense in particular. However, it should be at a reasonable minimum. Defense cannot be won. Means of gaining dominance should be given higher priority.

      In the United States, there is a clear bias towards offensive weapons systems, which may one day "come out sideways." But in other matters, these are their problems, and we can only be glad that the Americans are "stupid".

      Misalignment is not with them, but someone else. Wars are won solely by means of attack.

      In Israel, this approach is not shared; in terms of the density of modern air defense systems per unit area, you are probably in first place in the world.

      1. In Israel, the area is such that it does not matter how much and what you put there, you will immediately come out not the first place in the world "per unit area".
      2. The worst thing that has happened to Israel over the past 10 years is the success of the LCD.
  10. Bongo
    6 September 2016 06: 56
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    I am not against defense as such and air defense in particular. However, it should be at a reasonable minimum. Defense cannot be won. Means of gaining dominance should be given higher priority.

    Of course, but in the USA there is practically no military air defense.
    Quote: Professor
    Misalignment is not with them, but someone else. Wars are won solely by means of attack.

    Who? what what
    Quote: Professor
    In Israel, the area is such that it does not matter how much and what you put there, you will immediately come out not the first place in the world "per unit area".

    Nevertheless, in Israel air defense is given the most serious attention, perhaps the matter is in a hostile environment, which is not in the USA?
    Quote: Professor
    The worst thing that has happened to Israel over the past 10 years is the success of the LCD.

    Why didn’t the LCD please you? In my opinion, a fully functional system.
    1. Professor
      Professor 6 September 2016 07: 30
      +2
      Of course, but in the USA there is practically no military air defense.

      Why would she have them when air supremacy is practically ensured for them? Who will be able to attack their columns on the march (rhetorical question)? request

      Who?

      Who skews or who wins wars? Skew you, and wars are won solely by means of attack from all. This is universal truth.

      Nevertheless, in Israel air defense is given the most serious attention, perhaps the matter is in a hostile environment, which is not in the USA?

      You do not confuse air defense and missile defense. Very little attention is paid to air defense (not to be confused with interceptors). The same Spider is only exported like other air defense systems. But missile defense is given a lot of attention.

      Why didn’t the LCD please you? In my opinion, a fully functional system.

      The fact of the matter is that, purely technically, the LCD has exceeded all expectations. The effectiveness of interceptions is excellent. This is what allows the political leadership of Israel to sit idle and not respond properly to rocket attacks. If there was no LCD, then after the number of missiles launched by Hamas in Israel, Hamas would cease to exist and Gaza would be cleared of this evil. Thanks to the ZhK, there are practically no victims of shelling, Hamas is untouchable and continues to threaten us from Gaza. hi
  11. Bongo
    6 September 2016 10: 01
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Why would she have them when air supremacy is practically ensured for them? Who will be able to attack their columns on the march (rhetorical question)?

    Are you sure that this will be always and everywhere? No. It may happen that the "expeditionary forces" need anti-aircraft cover.
    Quote: Professor
    Skew you, and wars are won solely by means of attack from all. This is universal truth.

    I knew that you would say that. lol Let me disagree, as an "old air defense officer" I responsibly declare that in the USSR in the 80s there was an air defense system that was impenetrable without the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, it was impossible to win a war with its help, but inflicting absolutely unacceptable losses on air attack weapons, covering troops against objects - it was quite realistic. Today tomorrow the first article from my series "The current state of the air defense of countries - the former Soviet Union republics" should be published, where this topic is touched upon.
    Quote: Professor
    Very little attention is paid to air defense (not to be confused with interceptors).

    Perhaps you are not sufficiently informed about the number and types of Israeli air defense systems? Do you know how many Patriots are deployed in your positions?
    Quote: Professor
    The fact of the matter is that, purely technically, the LCD has exceeded all expectations. The effectiveness of interceptions is excellent. This is what allows the political leadership of Israel to sit idle and not respond properly to rocket attacks. If there was no LCD, then after the number of missiles launched by Hamas in Israel, Hamas would cease to exist and Gaza would be cleared of this evil. Thanks to the ZhK, there are practically no victims of shelling, Hamas is untouchable and continues to threaten us from Gaza.

    I can’t argue with you here, on the spot. what’s called prominent!
    1. Professor
      Professor 6 September 2016 11: 27
      +1
      Are you sure it will be like this always and everywhere? no It may happen that the "expeditionary forces" need anti-aircraft cover.

      Can not. The conquest of air supremacy and the air support of American troops is a prerequisite for their doctrine. Do you not know? wink

      Let me disagree, as an "old air defense officer" I responsibly declare that in the USSR in the 80s there was an air defense system that was impenetrable without the use of nuclear weapons.

      Yah? Until the 1961 year, Americans freely crossed the entire USSR. Forgot? Do you remember the bully who sat down on Red Square? Do you remember how at the same time a pair of Turkish Phantoms flew over Georgia?

      It was certainly impossible to win a war with its help, but to inflict absolutely unacceptable losses on air attack weapons and to cover troops against objects was quite real.

      Nowhere and never did air defense decide the course of the war.

      Perhaps you are not sufficiently informed about the number and types of Israeli air defense systems? Do you know how many Patriots are deployed in your positions?

      I am well informed about what is deployed and where. SAM in Israel as a stepdaughter of the stepmother of aviation. And there are objective reasons for this. In my opinion, more than reasonable. The expression "The best air defense is our tanks on enemy airfields" is attributed to the Israeli general. And I will add: "Do you want to win the war? Develop your means of attack."
  12. Bongo
    6 September 2016 13: 43
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Can not. The conquest of air supremacy and the air support of American troops is a prerequisite for their doctrine. Do you not know?

    Nevertheless, the conquest of air supremacy is not possible without the suppression of air defense. All countries subjected to "democratization" did not have modern air defense.
    Quote: Professor
    Yah? Until the 1961 year, Americans freely crossed the entire USSR. Forgot? Do you remember the bully who sat down on Red Square? Do you remember how at the same time a pair of Turkish Phantoms flew over Georgia?

    So before the beginning of the 70's, there was no full-fledged air defense and a continuous radar field over the USSR. Rust was not shot down due to fear of personal responsibility, he was well seen and the radar was conducted for a long time. No one thought that he would fly to Moscow. Incidents with unpunished flights over Soviet territory certainly happened, but the number of downed violators is also impressive.
    Quote: Professor
    Nowhere and never did air defense decide the course of the war.

    So it can be said about aviation and about the ground forces. Each kind of troops has its own role. I know how powerful we were in the Far East at the end of the 80's, American tactical and carrier-based aircraft would wash their blood even if our interceptors and front-line fighters did not participate in repelling the strike.
    Quote: Professor
    I am well informed about what and where is deployed. SAM in Israel as a stepdaughter of an aviation stepmother.

    Then you cannot but agree that only one city on the planet - Moscow, can be compared in terms of security with Israel in terms of air defense systems (namely air defense systems and not missile defense systems).
    1. Professor
      Professor 6 September 2016 19: 12
      +1
      Nevertheless, the conquest of air supremacy is not possible without the suppression of air defense. All countries subjected to "democratization" did not have modern air defense.

      Suppress air defense "along the way". Air defense did not save anyone in due time, neither Egypt nor Syria. In Iraq and Yugoslavia, it did not help either. It got to the point that the shooting down of one F-117 is still presented as a Great Victory. fellow

      So before the beginning of the 70's, there was no full-fledged air defense and a continuous radar field over the USSR. Rust was not shot down due to fear of personal responsibility, he was well seen and the radar was conducted for a long time. No one thought that he would fly to Moscow. Incidents with unpunished flights over Soviet territory certainly happened, but the number of downed violators is also impressive.

      Any air defense system is stupidly suppressed by electronic warfare, decoys and false targets. No continuous radar field will help. Only strong aviation will be able to deliver such a blow that no one would want to fly into someone else's territory.

      So it can be said about aviation and about the ground forces. Each kind of troops has its own role. I know how powerful we were in the Far East at the end of the 80's, American tactical and carrier-based aircraft would wash their blood even if our interceptors and front-line fighters did not participate in repelling the strike.

      The ground forces have won more than one hundred wars, and aviation has been an active participant in recent victories. Hitler defeated the Netherlands only by the threat of aviation. Air defense smokes nervously on the sidelines. In general, infantry win the war. Until the soldier’s boot sets foot on the enemy’s land, they won’t win the war.

      Then you cannot but agree that only one city on the planet - Moscow, can be compared in terms of security with Israel in terms of air defense systems (namely air defense systems and not missile defense systems).

      So the area of ​​all of Israel is half the size of the Moscow region. fellow
    2. mult-65
      mult-65 3 December 2016 19: 39
      0
      Put on the map of the Russian Federation a map of Israel. Desirable in one scale :)
  13. Bongo
    7 September 2016 06: 40
    +1
    [quote = professor] [quote] Suppress air defense "along the way". Air defense did not save anyone in due time, neither Egypt nor Syria. In Iraq and Yugoslavia, it did not help either. It got to the point that the shooting down of one F-117 is still presented as a Great Victory. fellow
    I agree about the "great victory" yes But do not compare the air defense of the countries you have listed and the Soviet mid-end air defense of the 80's. No.
    [quote = professor] [quote] Any air defense system is stupidly suppressed by electronic warfare, decoys and false targets. No continuous radar field will help. Only strong aviation will be able to deliver such a blow that no one wants to fly into someone else's territory. [Quote] No, not at all, and if it is suppressed, at what cost? Do you recall the 1973 statistics? But it is worth recognizing that for the most part the Arabs acted in a stereotyped and sometimes frankly mediocre manner. As I already said, it is impossible to win a war with the help of air defense, but to inflict unacceptable losses is completely. And there is nothing wrong if a balance is maintained between offensive and defensive systems.
    [quote = professor] [quote] The ground forces have won more than one hundred wars, and aviation has been an active participant in recent victories. Hitler defeated the Netherlands only by the threat of aviation. Air defense smokes nervously on the sidelines. In general, infantry win the war. Until the soldier’s boot sets foot on the enemy’s land, they won’t win the war. [Quote]. Oleg, references to the Second World War are not quite correct, because there were no air defense systems then. Or am I missing something? Although then the British air defense system played a crucial role.

    [quote = professor] [quote] So the area of ​​all of Israel is half the size of the Moscow region. fellow[/ Quote]
    I agree, but in the USA only one Washington is covered, and even that is a Norwegian-made air defense system. Because there is no other threat besides the terrorist. But you still have troubled neighbors.
    PS After the "update" it is not possible to respond normally and quote. request
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 September 2016 10: 54
      +2
      I agree about the "great victory" yes But you shouldn't compare the air defense of the countries you listed with the Soviet air defense of the mid-late 80s

      Yes, but the Soviet missile defense would also be broken through not by the amount of funds that the countries I mentioned broke through.

      No, not at all, and if it is suppressed, at what cost? Do you recall the statistics for 1973? But it is worth recognizing that for the most part the Arabs acted in a stereotyped and sometimes frankly mediocre manner. As I already said, it is impossible to win a war with the help of air defense, but to inflict unacceptable losses is completely. And there is nothing wrong if a balance is maintained between offensive and defensive systems.

      Well, did the "statistics" of 1973, together with thousands of Soviet "advisers", help the Arabs? Do you remember Bekaa in 1982? I agree with you about the balance. IMHO in the USSR there was an obvious imbalance.

      Oleg, references to the Second World War are not quite correct, because there were no air defense systems then. Or am I missing something? Although then the British air defense system played a crucial role.

      SAM, not SAM - this is the details. The principle does not change. Defense wars do not win.

      But you still have troubled neighbors.

      That is precisely why the balance in the direction of attacking weapons is strongly biased in relation to the defense. Defense is the lot of the weak, and the weak are beaten.

      PS After the "update" it is not possible to respond normally and quote.

      This is one of the smallest issues after the upgrade. hi
      1. Bongo
        8 September 2016 00: 31
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        Yes, but the Soviet missile defense would also be broken through not by the amount of funds that the countries I mentioned broke through.

        This is one of the few issues on which we probably will not come to a common opinion. request You can break everything, but at what cost? The USSR Air Defense Forces were quite capable of sending up to 50% of the American tactical aviation fleet (at least in the Far East) and, as it seems to me, the IA and the Air Defense of the Ground Forces would also not have been idle.
        Quote: Professor
        Well, did the "statistics" of 1973, together with thousands of Soviet "advisers", help the Arabs?

        It helped Vietnam, and Arabs are Arabs ...
        Quote: Professor
        IMHO in the USSR there was a clear imbalance.

        There was no imbalance between the SAM and IA No. There were a lot of extra weapons.
        Quote: Professor
        That is precisely why the balance in the direction of attacking weapons is strongly biased in relation to the defense.

        That is true, but unlike the United States, anti-aircraft weapons, unlike the United States, receive much more attention than in the United States.
        Quote: Professor
        This is one of the smallest issues after the upgrade.

        It seems like it’s better, today it turns out to quote you. I hope that after my return from vacation, most of the problems will be resolved. I’ll fly to Crimea tomorrow. smile
        1. Professor
          Professor 8 September 2016 06: 39
          +1
          This is one of the few issues on which we probably will not come to a common opinion. request You can break everything, but at what cost? The USSR air defense forces were quite capable of sending up to 50% of the American tactical aviation fleet (at least in the Far East) into oblivion, and it seems to me that the IA and the air defense of the Ground Forces would also not have been idle.

          Even the loss of 50% of the aircraft is not a tragedy. We will not consider World War II, but in the same Doomsday War, Israel lost a huge number of aircraft. AND? We went to Africa and stopped 100 km from Cairo to the screams of the UN.

          It helped Vietnam, and Arabs are Arabs ...

          And Vietnam did not help. The Americans then screwed up on the ground. As I already wrote, infantry wins wars. And the American infantry did not win that war.

          There was no imbalance between the air defense system and the IA no. There were a lot of extra weapons.

          IMHO there was an imbalance and definitely there was a lot of extra weapon. And now, how many Kalashnikovs are in warehouses in Russia?

          I’ll fly to Crimea tomorrow.

          Patience to you there and a pleasant stay. drinks