Where is the ack ack?

[Tripleshot]

I have been watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox war coverage and when they show Bagdad, I no longer see the Iraqis' sending up AAA fire. Did the overwhelming air power already knock out the AAA in Bagdad?

 

[ManSnake]

What's the point of AAA fire if their guns can't reach our planes? Waste of ammunition.

 

[sandorski]

Likely saving it for the eventual ground attack on Baghdad. From what I recall, all this time they have not yet used their Radar for tracking targets, they have only used it detect incoming targets. This way they'd be able to prevent Radar detection and possibly save it from being destroyed. It is possible that it has been destroyed though. I dunno.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I have been watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox war coverage and when they show Bagdad, I no longer see the Iraqis' sending up AAA fire. Did the overwhelming air power already knock out the AAA in Bagdad?

There was a report that the person in charge of air defence, who I believe was said to be one of Saddam's relative's, was removed because he kept missing the planes and ended up hitting the city when it came down.

 

[etech]

This is bothering me for some reason.

It's not Yak Yak, it is Ack Ack.

ACK-ACK- an expression for anti-aircraft. The letter 'a' was pronounced 'ack' by signallers to avoid mistakes in transmission. Thus, 'a-a' was pronounced 'ack-ack'.

British intelligence sources say Iraq has replaced the commander of air defence forces after Iraqi surface-to-air missiles, aimed at Western warplanes, had missed and fallen back on the Iraqi capital.


Conserving ammo is a pretty good guess. There won't be any resupply once they run out.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: etech
This is bothering me for some reason.

It's not Yak Yak, it is Ack Ack.

ACK-ACK- an expression for anti-aircraft. The letter 'a' was pronounced 'ack' by signallers to avoid mistakes in transmission. Thus, 'a-a' was pronounced 'ack-ack'.

British intelligence sources say Iraq has replaced the commander of air defence forces after Iraqi surface-to-air missiles, aimed at Western warplanes, had missed and fallen back on the Iraqi capital.


Conserving ammo is a pretty good guess. There won't be any resupply once they run out.

Thanks Etech. I have made the correction.

 

[Kenazo]

can AAA guns be used against ground targets if they are pointed in the right direction? I'd assume that they could do some nasty damage to foot soldiers. Could they be saving their AAA ammo for use against american soldiers?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
can AAA guns be used against ground targets if they are pointed in the right direction? I'd assume that they could do some nasty damage to foot soldiers. Could they be saving their AAA ammo for use against american soldiers?

In WWII the Germans made good use of their 88mm AA gun as an anti-tank gun. I'm not that knowledgeable about current weapons but I don't see why they couldn't use them against ground targets.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Likely saving it for the eventual ground attack on Baghdad. From what I recall, all this time they have not yet used their Radar for tracking targets, they have only used it detect incoming targets. This way they'd be able to prevent Radar detection and possibly save it from being destroyed. It is possible that it has been destroyed though. I dunno.

They are not "saving it". There's no use.

No matter when they use it, it will never reach our planes. Our planes are flying above the altitude that AAA can reach. AA can only go so high, eventually you need a missile.

If they're saving anything it would be the missiles. But AAA alone is just about worthless nowadays, since all modern aircraft can fly well above their range. It's good for shooting down low flying targets. For instance, if Iraq had a sh!tload of high altitude SAM's like the soviet union did, then you'd want to fly below the effective range of those missiles. Once you go that low though, you're in range of AAA.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
can AAA guns be used against ground targets if they are pointed in the right direction? I'd assume that they could do some nasty damage to foot soldiers. Could they be saving their AAA ammo for use against american soldiers?

All I know is that you can use it against tanks and jeeps and men in BF1942.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
can AAA guns be used against ground targets if they are pointed in the right direction? I'd assume that they could do some nasty damage to foot soldiers. Could they be saving their AAA ammo for use against american soldiers?

Usually no. The way they're mounted prevents them from being pointed at the ground. In addition, the kind of shells they fire probably won't pierce a tank. They're made to make a lot of shrapnel to damage thinly armored aircraft, unlike an anti-tank round that uses a shaped charge or a hard penetrator.

 

[Kenazo]

but they would probably be very effective against troops then.

 

[JellyBaby]

Ammo conservation is a good guess. Possibly saving it for immediate defense of Baghdad vs. Apaches and other low flying aircraft when the time comes? After all they didn't exactly hit a whole heck of a lot with it 10 years ago.

Oh and I think its appropriate that Tripleshot is posting about Triple-A, don't you?

 

[MadRat]

Actually Marshallj, thats not really true.

1. Most AAA turrets do traverse both positive and negative planes along the lateral axis, making the vehicle-mounted AAA normally able to aim at targets slightly below their own view along the horizon
2. Most modern AAA (post-WWII) is designed for a secondary anti-personnell or anti-tank use
3. Most of the AAA used by Iraq is not fused so it is possible to use it to penetrate most armor short of the battle tanks

Iraq has many heavy caliber machine guns in the (ZPU) 14.5mm range, in single to quad mounts, and a good number of heavy caliber rapid-fire cannons from 23mm to 57mm. Quite a few of these come in the twin-mounted variety - (M1939) 23mm, 37mm, and 57mm rapid-fire cannons - although most of these are relatively futile in the AAA role. The least effective AAA, but most likely to actually score a hit because of their ability to get high, are the 85mm to 100mm big guns, up to 50000ft. (Its possible the Iraqis even some 130mm really big ones capable of reaching 63000ft!) The most effective AAA they have is the 35mm systems, using computerized aiming backed by both electro-optical and radar sensors. The next most effective are the ZSU-23-4 mobile AAA systems that have their own self-contained radar sights. Some of their other 57mm to 130mm systems have radar sights, too, but a majority of these systems date back to the 1950's and some even to WWII.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Actually Marshallj, thats not really true.

1. Most AAA turrets do traverse both positive and negative planes along the lateral axis, making the vehicle-mounted AAA normally able to aim at targets slightly below their own view along the horizon
2. Most modern AAA (post-WWII) is designed for a secondary anti-personnell or anti-tank use
3. Most of the AAA used by Iraq is not fused so it is possible to use it to penetrate most armor short of the battle tanks

Iraq has many heavy caliber machine guns in the (ZPU) 14.5mm range, in single to quad mounts, and a good number of heavy caliber rapid-fire cannons from 23mm to 57mm. Quite a few of these come in the twin-mounted variety - (M1939) 23mm, 37mm, and 57mm rapid-fire cannons - although most of these are relatively futile in the AAA role. The least effective AAA, but most likely to actually score a hit because of their ability to get high, are the 85mm to 100mm big guns, up to 50000ft. (Its possible the Iraqis even some 130mm really big ones capable of reaching 63000ft!) The most effective AAA they have is the 35mm systems, using computerized aiming backed by both electro-optical and radar sensors. The next most effective are the ZSU-23-4 mobile AAA systems that have their own self-contained radar sights. Some of their other 57mm to 130mm systems have radar sights, too, but a majority of these systems date back to the 1950's and some even to WWII.

Hmm, I looked it up and you're right about some of the Russian ones being able to be used against the ground, but it lists the largest one as having a max range of 12,000 meters (which is around 39,000 feet). Aircraft can easily fly higher than that. Even civilian airliners regularly cruise at 40,000 feet.

 

[MadRat]

Being able to reach it and being able to sustain the altitude are entirely different.

I'm going off of memory on those numbers, you're probably right. Could have sworn the maximum vertical altitudes of Russian 85mm were 45000ft, 100mm were around 50000ft and the 130mm were around 63000ft. Seems like the 85mm even had the highest velocity coming out of the barrel of the three.

The 14.5mm ZPU's are some of the most common ground weapons found in the Third world. Seems like almost every country - besides the U.S. and Western Europe - owns them and uses them liberally across their battle lines. The U.S. really doesn't have a counterpart, not that its necessary. Even though they are listed as an AAA weapon they really are more a general purpose gun.

 

[Marshallj]

Also, don't forget that the aircraft can see the shells coming up on radar, so they can avoid them. While at first it seems like you wouldn't be able to see a bullet, they actually travel slower than missiles. The peak velocity of the shells will be right at the end of the gun barrel, and they're only slowing down from there. Missiles will reach a higher speed and sustain that speed for a longer time. At the edge of the AAA's envolope, I don't think they're much of a threat.