[Raellus]

It seems like, compared to the WTO, NATO didn't put much stock/resources into the development and fielding of significant numbers of AAA platforms.

Why? I don't know for sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the US and NATO believed that aircraft were the best anti-aircraft weapon sytem, and that Army heads were content to let the AFs take on the job so that they could spend their limited budgets on more AFVs and SPGs.

Also, why did the US Army move away from the VADS? Yeah, 20mm rounds had limited effective range, but AAA is mostly for point defense anyway, and SAMS cover anything beyond AAA range so...

Frankly, NATOs eschewing of AAA was a mistake. Good thing we didn't have to find that out the hard way.

By contrast, the WTO militaries were lousy with AAA, both guided systems like the ZU-23-4 Shilka and the 2-K22 Tunguska, and sundry unguided systems running the gamut from 57mm to 14.5mm guns.

Even if AAA is not effective in combating aerial targets (or too effective and the enemy runs low on CAS airframes), AAA can be used to provide direct fire support for infantry against ground targets*. The vast majority of SAMs can not.

*The Russians found the ZU-23-4 Shilka SPAAG to be one of the most effective weapons platforms for urban warfare during the Chechen Wars due to its high ROF and ability to elevate to hit upper floors of multistory buildings.

Also a US VAD destroyed a Panamanian gunboat during Operation Just Cause. Try that with a Patriot SAM.