PLA Anti-Air Gun systems

Fairthought said:

Don't forget the Russians found that Mobile AAA were the best vehicles for Urban warfare. Tanks were too heavy, and could not elevate their guns high enough in winding streets where rebels on buildling rooftops were directly overhead.

Click to expand...

AAA guns have always proven to be best when turned against grouind troops, like the german 88mm. so a ciws turned to a tank would shred it up, just like the a-10 gatling would.

AAA is usually used side by side with sams nowadays. but since long range sams are often not very mobile, AAA still provides valuable offensive air cover.

I think you're generalising a bit too much, it is true that since shooting down an aircraft is very difficult, AAA weapons are usually quite good, and they have the same abilities as required by anti tank guns, mainly high velocity and flat trajectory. Saying that any CIWS would rip a tank to pieces is to say too much, heavier calibres might very well do so if loaded with AP rounds, but a smaller calibre (20 mm) would have problems against an MBT, especially if no AP rounds where available.

Well in a Taiwan conflict, The US would be fighting over the Taiwan straight and Taiwan so there would be limited SAM cover for the PLA. As for the Egyption Bubble, it occured before the Israeli's had an adequent antiradiation solution. If the US does intend to take out critical airfields and C4ISR assets of China, it would use B-2s and F-117s and tamohawks from naval assets. China would have great trouble with fighting with the USN naval air fleet which itself is more powerful than the PLAAF. In a warsituation, you can bet that there would be 4+ carriers in theatre.

Lavi said:

Saying that any CIWS would rip a tank to pieces is to say too much, heavier calibres might very well do so if loaded with AP rounds, but a smaller calibre (20 mm) would have problems against an MBT, especially if no AP rounds where available.

Click to expand...

@_@

The Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS gun is the same 30mm GAU-8/A used on A-10's. If that thing is used against a MBT, the MBT is not likely to survive.

If I'm not mistaken the US Phalanx CIWS guns have DU ammo.

1)

A-10 wasn't meant to target the frontal aspect armor of an MBT, it'll not penetrate. Instead, the A-10 shoots the TOP of the tank, where the armor is the thinnest. I don't see how you can achieve high atitude with a land based system.

2)

Phalanx DID have DU penetrators, but they're all tungsten now. The DU penetrator was perceived to be needed because the Soviets started armoring their AShMs.

I recall a picture of an M1A1 at the beginning of the second Gulf War with a good bite taken out the front right of the tank. Some say the Iraqis had some weapon that penetrated the front of the M1A1. The US military said it was accidental friendly-fire from an A-10's cannon.

are you sure they said "cannon" and not "hell fire"? Because a GAU-8 with the AP-DU round is rated at around 200mm RHA at 1000m and 280mm point blank. Unless you're saying that the front right of an M1 is less than 200mm, which I can penetrate with an RPG-7 (also known as my right hand), I suggest that you, well, abandon your previous point.

BACK to sams

one importent thing is that American or the NATO do not get their hands on a single bit of info all existing systems the american know must have extra modificaton as proven in chinas battles aginst the U-2 wars in the middle east and serbia have proves this the sserbs made some changes this and good tatic inflicted hevy losses

first of all, have you EVER heard of punctuations? Because I'm having a tat of trouble understanding you, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Now if you're referring to the F-117 incident, it wasn't due to any Serbian modifications to the Goblet, but the general stupidity of the planners. Happened to be that they planned the strike at the same time everyday using the same general approach vector. And of course, the Goblet and the AAA are mobile.