The Russian Mosin Nagant Forum

Image source: http://www.theatlantic.com/
With no anti-aircraft equipment available, these soldiers take aim themselves

An exercise in Sniper rifle frustration maybe? Bill

I guess it beats trying to get your whole body under your helmet. Who knows, you throw enough lead you might get lucky. There must certainly been some unlucky Stuka pilot who drew the 7.62 card. The Soviets probably called the victim one unluky Sturmivik.

Cool picture... but my shoulder hurts just looking at it.

Maybe not anti aircraft training at all. Just a good ole' duck dinner.

If you look carefully you will notice that they are all using scoped 'sniper' rifles

cj1964 wrote:Cool picture... but my shoulder hurts just looking at it.

qz2026 wrote:

cj1964 wrote:Cool picture... but my shoulder hurts just looking at it.

+1 Full force of the round + gravity! OuCh!

The days of wooden ships and iron men.....

Were the airplane sights on M-39's and any other rifles ever tested?, you know, maybe on a banner type target pulled by a plane? If 20 men with a range spotter all firing volleys it would be as good if not better than anti-aircraft. Put that in your pump shotgun and smoke it.

Looks like a nice target for a strafing run.....

Anti aircraft sights on Finn M39's? So far as I recall only the Japanese Type 99 early models had true anti aircraft sights on them however much wishful thinking that was.

Yea in some video I saw they were called airplane sights, maybe Hickok 45's review. When you flip up the sight and are using the increments that go to 2200M I think, what else could you see that far? Think about 20 men all firing with a range spotter, putting 100 rounds up there in 10-15 seconds at a big lumbering aircraft, could be bad news. I would like to see that. Of course these days, if you miss, you get a hellfire missle back atcha.

Small ground fire at planes would pretty useless and not even near as effective as anti aircraft fire.

steelbuttplate wrote:Yea in some video I saw they were called airplane sights, maybe Hickok 45's review. When you flip up the sight and are using the increments that go to 2200M I think, what else could you see that far? Think about 20 men all firing with a range spotter, putting 100 rounds up there in 10-15 seconds at a big lumbering aircraft, could be bad news. I would like to see that. Of course these days, if you miss, you get a hellfire missle back atcha.

They may as well have just chucked rocks at 'em. Only big lumbering planes in the war were the bombers. An infantry rifle against an attack airplane is nothing more than a peashooter. A Stuka would be difficult to hit as they (and most other attack planes) came in at a very steep angle. Also, a puny rifle round would usually just punch a hole in the airplane. There are relatively few areas on an airplane that would be critical if hit. The best engines could survive ground fire enough to get the plane home.

awalker1829 wrote: There are relatively few areas on an airplane that would be critical if hit.

The pilot's pretty critical though!

So I guess the soldiers in the photo above were a bunch of dumbasses. Or maybe they were hoping for a goose dinner. No aircraft in VietNam were ever shot down by small arms fire . What a waste of ammo

Lot of choppers got lit up by small arms fire over there and went down also.

Speed is the critical factor. Most of the aircraft that were shot down by small arms fire tended to be slower moving, which permits the shooter more time to determine the lead necessary to hit the target. Transport helicopters were particularly vulnerable due to their low speeds as were the observer aircraft used by the FACs. The fact that they had to loiter in the vicinity of the target didn't help any.

The cockpit is one of the few vulnerable areas and is often armored on slower aircraft, specifically those used in ground support roles. Some fighter aircraft of the World War Two era had armored seat panels to protect the pilot from shots fired from a rear attack. The pilot in an A-10 Warthog sits in what is essentially a titanium bathtub.

Sure it's major and I said it to make a point. I have a cousin that flew an F-4 in Nam. Small arms fire is plenty more effective than chucking rocks. Critical areas? , uh, jet engines don't like bullets, nor do fuel tanks, I hope we never have to use it, it would be a last ditch effort, but if that's all you had, well, .