Talk:Anti-aircraft warfare

message: I belive the statement, "The United States Army has disdained air defense for ground units, counting on achieving air superiority. This has left a gap in American military equipment between the man-portable Stinger and the theater anti-missile system Patriot." should be removed.  The existence of the Avenger Missle System, which has been in service since 1989, seems to disprove it.
: It would be good to find a source which confirms or denies this statement.  The presence of the Avenger alone doesn't really prove anything; it depends on the level of deployment, the presence and nature of AA assets at coy, bn, bde, div levels, doctrine, etc.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:08 Z
:: By checking the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE), a US Division has 1 battalion of Air Defense Artillery assigned with between 1 and 3 batteries (companies) using the Avenger (12 Avengers per battery).  Heavier divisions also have M6 Linebackers assigned (anti-aircraft versions of the M2 Bradley IFV).  Check it out at GlobalSecurity.org.  I think that disproves the statement in question. Movementarian 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are no objections I am going to replace the disdain statement with something about the US Army Air Defense Artillery Regts. Movementarian 18:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap in US Army Equipment? 

message: The article needs disambiguation and restructuring badly. We should distinct between the weapon systems (i.e. mostly technical issues) and military organization (strategy, tactics, battle history, ranks so forth). One should know that "air defense" is not just a type of warfare, but also a name for the distinct military detachments (or whole forces - such as in USSR and North Korea). Would someone fix this because my English military terms are relatively poor (but ready to consult and discuss).  AlexPU 17:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Structuring needed

message: The title "Anti-aircraft" sounds funny.  Is it a noun?  "Anti-aircraft warfare" or "Air defense" sounds much better.  Comments?  Kowloonese 21:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Air Defense"?

message: The german term stated as the root of flak is different from the one stated in the wiktionary.  Here it is Flugabwehrkanone (and in the disambiguation page for flak), Wiktionary states Fliegerabwehrkanone.
(unsigned)
The correct German term really is Flugabwehrkanone. Please have a look at the German sister page as well as at at least somewhat authorative sites like http://www.geschichte.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN48PDnYDSYGYAYb6kTChoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq1YIQ/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzdfU1NI (History pages of German Airforce, sorry for long url) or http://www.bundesarchiv.de/bestaende_findmittel/bestaendeuebersicht/body.html?id_main=1643&where=naeheres&what=id_bestand&id_bestand=1643      
(Federal German Archive catalogizing documents from WW 1, see first blue box).
--MBP 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a German I can confirm that FLUGabwehrkanone is at least the more common than FLIEGERabwehrkanone. And FLUG is CORRECT, it may make no sense, but that is what it is known as, a Flugabwehrkanone! 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

text: see also the German Wikipedia: FLUGabwehrkanone 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Term 

message: As someone who recently read Steinbeck's "Once there was a war", I got interested in the use of barrage balloons for air defense. As "Air defense" is redirected to "Anti-aircraft warfare", it would have been interesting to read someone knowledgeable's description of their use and effectivity.
Perhaps someone could add a section about that?
Anders Berglund 09:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrage balloons? 

message: This article is on the general topic.  We have a specific article on SAMs, but we need an overview of guns too.  Anybody up for splitting it out and repointing the redirects? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably it would be good if this anti-aircraft warfare article fitted into the same pattern as Armoured warfare ie that nice nav box down the side. Though how assymetric got in there - longbow vs french cavalry - not a sole technical advantage but more a combination of weapon and disposition. .55 Webley vs Maori war club that's a technical advantage. But I digressGraemeLeggett 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need separate article on AAA 

message: Russian AAA weapons were utilized in air defense in North Vietnam and in other conflicts but is not mentioned in this article. Also, where would be mention of such weapons as "Shilka" or various other mobile AAA? Hatcat 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skysweeper but no Soviet/Russian Guns? 

message: There is an amazing image of a B-24 breaking up after being hit by flak. The caption states it is 20mm fire, but the image page does not specify the source. Looking at the picture I'd estimate the aircraft is over 10k feet in altitude which makes it extremely unlikely this is a 20mm hit, and almost certainly an 88. Can anyone say more about this image? Maury 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could be lots of things - 105mm flak, fighter cannon - who knows? I don't see how we can possibly know the bomber was hit by 88 mm fire. DMorpheus (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wing of the plane is burning and tearing off, which suggests something lit the fuel in it. I'm not sure that Flak can do that, but my intuition claims that it was shot with by a German Interceptor, which usually has 15, 20, and 30 mm light cannons. Victory in Germany (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-24 20mm? 

message: The article claimed twice that guns firing a one-pound projectile are of 20 mm caliber. 
That is technically impossible, the heaviest 20 mm projectiles ever used were around 150-160 grm in weight,  which is only a third of a pound.  The actual caliber of the one-pounder guns used first as AAA , e.g. the Maxim Pom-Pom, was typically 37 mm. Now corrected.
Textor 09:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only find one instance of "1 pound" in the article, and no calibre is mentioned. Am I missing something? Maury 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - my previously unmentioned edit of said problem. Look at the article's history, and compare the current with an earlier  version. Textor 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent Mistake regarding 1-pounder Guns 

message: I deleted the following statement on the Ajax guided anti-air missile: (based on the German Wasserfall).
According to the articles on the Nike_Ajax and the Wasserfall, the former was developed independently of the latter. The legacy of the Wasserfall is described as: After World War II, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101. 
Textor 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Claim that Nike Ajax SAM was based on German Wasserfall 

message: Three reasons: 1. the image was put in the introductory section, instead of the one on Post-War developments. If you want to restore it, please put it there  2. The PZA Loara may lack notability as a representative example for SPAAGs, compared to others: it is a recent project, used solely by Poland, and its technology appears unremarkable. Older, more widely employed SPAAGs like the Russian ZSU-23-4 Shilka, or the German Gepard, may make more recognizeabale examples. Alternatively, the Tunguska-M1 could be used as an example that is both more widely employed and technologically advanced. 3. The image is also already used as an illustration for the SPAAG article. 
Textor 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Removal of PZA Loara Image 

message: what a funny article...the whole thing is about anti-aircraft weapons, but no information is given for effective engagement altitudes of the weapons mentioned, or define what the various altitudes are in terms of defining the AA/AD units. --Mrg3105 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  effective altitudes 

message: The article states:
:Because the Quad 50's 4 separate guns could be pre-set to converge at a given distance, it could saw off the wing of a low-flying enemy plane attempting to complete a strafing run.
This sounds like a military urban legend to me. Simple analysis: WW2 fighter plane speeds varied from about 275 knots (450 fps) to 390 knots (640 fps). Let's work with 450 fps to be conservative. The rate of fire of the .50 cal is around 500 rounds per minute, so a quad 50 is about 2,000 rounds per minute, or 33 rounds per second. Hence, if a plane flies past perpendicularly the average spacing between (potential) hits is 450 fps x 1/33 s = 13.5 feet, which is obviously not even in the ballpark of "sawing off wings". This spacing can be reduced by a factor of sinθ if the plane is flying not perpendicularly to the line of fire, but more or less straight at it, but it is going to have to be almost perfectly aligned to do any "sawing". In short this claim looks bogus to me.-- 202.63.39.58 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sawing off wings 

message: a forum is not a proper refernce SubaruSVX (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Despite earlier discussion this article is wrongly named.  AAW is not the same as AD.
AAP-6 (NATO Glossary) sets the following definitions:
air defence AD 
All measures designed to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of hostile air action. 
anti-air warfare AAW 
Measures taken to defend a maritime force against attacks by airborne weapons launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based sites. 
Also note:
active air defence 
Active measures taken against attacking enemy forces to destroy or nullify any form of air or missile threat or to reduce the effectiveness of any such attack. 
passive air defence
Passive measures taken for the physical defence and protection of personnel, essential installations and equipment in order to minimize the effectiveness of air and/or missile attack.
defensive counter-air operation 
Active and passive defensive measures designed to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or make ineffective forces attempting to attack or to penetrate friendly airspace. 
 
offensive counter-air operation OCA 
An operation mounted to destroy, disrupt or limit enemy air power as close to its source as possible.
Nfe (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions - article title

message: The sentence stating that most SPAAGS have been replaced by MANPADS is obviously inconsistent with the page on SPAAGs where at least a dozen modern SPAAGS from various countries in deployment are listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.242 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAAG Being Replaced 

message: Descriptions of Second World War anti-aircraft defences often refer to bombers being "coned" by multiple searchlights.  Was this ever used for measuring altitude?  If you had an aircraft coned by three (or even two) searchlights at surveyed locations connected by telephone, simultaneously measuring the angle of the lights from vertical would enable you to do a trigonometric calculation of the altitude of the aircraft.  That would be be of great assistance in accurately setting time fuses.  Did anyone ever try it?  Peter Bell (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Altitude estimation was a primary function of searchlights; but measurement, computation, and communication difficulties limited practical accuracy within available engagement time.  Aside from problems with communication protocol for identifying and keeping more than one searchlight on the same aircraft, computational methods devised for ship targeting with contemporary convergent optical rangefinders were complicated by adding a third angle.Thewellman (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range-finding by searchlight? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Amd sa11.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I checked out this article to get a primer on what licenses civilians would need for surface to air missiles such as the stinger and other possible civilian options.  Obviously I will be able to find the information elsewhere but it would have been helpful to myself if this information was included.
Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.88.143 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian options? 

message: The section title POSTWAR infers all actions following WWII were incidental or unremarkable. This section needs to be enlarged to include AAA in the Korean War. Almost from the opening days, the 26th AAA was used much more for infantry support than for antiaircraft, with AAA units becoming known as "The Automatic Infantry" in the desperate delaying actions along the Kum River, at Taejon and throughout the defense of the Naktong Perimeter. Many men were highly decorated for their actions in Korea, including the Distinguished Service Cross to Harold Haugland, Montana, (15th AAA) during actions at the Chosin Reservoir.
I think not.  The article is about AA warfare not AA units or using AA weapons for non-AA tasks.  Nfe (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: AAA in Korean War

message: This article seems to assume an understanding of the principles of AA (or FLAK). I wasn't able to find anywhere that really explains how it works or how high the shells can be launched, etc. In particular, I looked up "Flak" and was redirected here to get all kinds of more general information (barrage balloons, whatever) that seems quite irrelevant to flak.
Beowulf (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article doesn't really explain its subject 

message: Please create an edit notice for this article, placing in it the template .  Thank you! KDS4444Talk 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: British English editnotice request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104184517/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defence/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071649/http://www.thefirstworldwar.net/licnosti/ucesnici-ratova/ljutovac-radoje/ to http://www.thefirstworldwar.net/licnosti/ucesnici-ratova/ljutovac-radoje/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723191844/http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514025728/http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flak to http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flak
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The US Navy put some thought into this as well? Well, that will cover glossing over to a major extent. I'd direct your attention to Norman Friedman's book on the subject. The singular most advanced systems deployed during WW2 was by the US Navy. The reason was that they were well aware of just how inadequate their AA system was when they deployed drones they could test the systems out on and shoot down the drones. The US was shipping AA gear to the RN because it was so much in advance of what they had. Overall all naval AA is treated very lightly if at all.Tirronan (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage of the (tachymetric) US Mk 37 Director vs the(non-tachymetric) British HACS may be overstated by Friedman, as there have been suggestions his figures for Mk 37 directed 5" AA kills are based on uncorrected USN claims, rather than the corrected IJN loss figures, which have long been available in books by other researchers. His treatment of barrage fire by the two navies is also wildly inconsistent, first disparaging the systematic and ABU-controlled RN usage, despite its proven effectiveness in the Med, then saying the USN did not use it, immediately after giving examples where they did. Equally HACS evolved towards a pseudo-tachymetric system with the addition of the Gyro Rate Unit from fairly early in the war. The RN itself apparently concluded Mk 37 was superior, having realised adopting a non-tachymetric system was a mistake, but received very few Mk 37s, with only the early trials system on HMS Delhi seeing action (the other 42 systems eventually allocated went into HMS Vanguard, the Ark Royal class carriers and some of the Battle class destroyers, all of which are effectively postwar). Even Friedman states that the RN was the best-prepared navy wrt naval air defence going into WWII. WRT inadequacies in USN AA defence discovered firing at drones, Friedman also points out that this was identified very shortly pre-war, ie the Mk 37 predates it.
82.11.66.40 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: HACS had serious problems as the RN noted and it was improved. You leave out the fact that the RN hated the MK 37 so much that they got the 42 units and ordered more. The RN Admiral in charge of Task Group 37 noted the better equipment as well. That said, the RN had far better AA than anyone else but the USN. It never stopped improving and the two countries were constantly sharing data and equipment. Virtually, anything that the US had was shared with the UK and this was reciprocated. As for World War 2, in naval AA had the best but the RN was catching up and quickly. They were not competitors they were allies in every sense of the word. Nor was the USN happy with its AA. The kamikaze situation had turned a horrible air war into a complete nightmare. There was and still is a lot of room for improvement. BTW both countries share many of the same contractors in the day and age. BAE to name one. This isn't a competition and it never was.Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Anti-Aircraft 

message: In this part is written: "After the Dambusters raid in 1943 an entirely new system was developed that was required to knock down any low-flying aircraft with a single hit. The first attempt to produce such a system used a 50 mm gun, but this proved inaccurate and a new 55 mm gun replaced it." - could You please state what 55m Flak that would be? Looking at the 50mm Flak 41 it does not seem that this development was continued into a 55mm but an 88mm Flak. If one looks at the 50 mm Flak it looks very similar to a 88mm (eighty-eight) Flak 41, which is btw not comparable to the 88mm Flak 36/37. Also I have no knowledge of such a 55mm FLAK! 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second World War and the mysterious 55mm Flak 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article does not mention the way Helsinki was defended agains soviet bombers. The aa-guns fired continous screening fire around Helsinki Center spo that bomber could not fly through. They did not try to shoot down individual planes but just continously to deny the airspace over Helsinki center. Linkato1 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish air defense for Helsinki durnig WWII 

message: Many of todays air defense actions involve missiles, which are not aircraft. Should the article be moved to "air defense" to reflect this? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Air defense"?  

message: I just created a redirect from UAV countermeasure to the pertinent section on this page. I personally think that would be a workable name for a main article on the topic. I can't see drone warfare expanding at this pace, and not soon needing a main page devoted to UAV countermeasures. UAV countermeasure could also cover netting and camouflage, in addition to fancy gadgets like the Lithuanian EDM4S. — MaxEnt 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New redirect from UAV countermeasure