Picture of the day

Leading an aircraft while it is shooting at you takes balls of steel.

There is a general rule of thumb that we had back in the late sixties. The Viet Cong used it to very good effect. If the chopper is coming at you straight on without deflection then aim right at it. That worked with Hueys but not with Hinds. Hueys were made of Aluminum with Plexiglas wind screens. Bullets passed into them with relative ease. Hinds on the other hand were made of laminated Titanium on the bottom and part way up the side. Their pilots/gunners were protected by heavy Perspex that took a real beating before a bullet got through. Compare it to an A10 Warthog but with a rotor. I personally saw one take an RPG round directly into its belly and the darn thing just bucked ten feet or so higher and the pilot almost instantly brought it back under control. He swung it around on its nose and came back to kill the grenadier while he was trying to reload his launcher and his rocket carriers. That Soviet pilot handled the Hind like he was part of it. He did a lot of damage that day and flew away to brag about it. Those darn dual chain guns in the nose are set up with solids as well as explosive rounds and can be rotated close to or over 180 degrees. Some were equipped with rocket pods as well as gun pods on the weapon sponsons which looked more like wings.

When the chopper came close but required a deflection shot then lead it by half its length and let go with the whole magazine. Swing through in front of the chopper just like a trap shooter does on a clay. It was a pretty effective strategy on choppers.

Now fixed wing aircraft are a different matter completely. Depending on what they are, they are usually very fast and have heavy guns or worse yet rockets and bombs. Rockets are pure hell with a fiery tail. The planes and even some rocket equipped choppers fire the rockets from beyond the range of small arms held by troops. The rockets are hard both physically and mentally on their targets and are often used to soften up the targets before using guns to finish the job. Unless God is really smiling upon you, there is no way a rocket can be stopped. My sincerest advice is to duck and cover as best as the situation offers.

Another issue with planes and choppers coming in with direct fire is that the bullets they shoot have extreme velocities because they are multiplied by the speed of the aircraft itself. This makes for extreme penetration as well as very dangerous ricochets.

As Purple mentioned and he would know, this is still effective, especially on soft skinned aircraft. Multiple shooters that have been properly trained also makes a huge difference. Unless a lone gunman is really lucky or maybe has a 50 cal weapon of some sort their chances are pretty slim of taking out the aircraft. Heavy machine guns work well under properly emplaced conditions with well trained crews. IMHO the training the Soviet snipers were being given was good. Shooting from such open positions would be questionable IMHO. Also that would be contrary to any other training they were getting. I believe that was a staged photo but I also believe they used such tactics.

You do what it takes to survive and to help your fellow troopies survive. That's what it boils down to in the end.
 
Last edited:
This takes me back to a day in South Lebanon where I had the experience of being shot at in an Italian flown Bell helicopter. There were many competing and unco-ordinated militia groups in Lebanon, but one thing they all had in common was their hatred for the Israelis. The UN was the only organization besides the IDF that flew anything, so their thinking was that anything that flew was Israeli, and therefore a target to be engaged. A white paint job made no difference to them. It was what's called a "weapons free" air defence state.

This particular day I was sitting in the Italian Huey when we saw big lazy 12.7mm or 14.5mm tracers coming up and falling behind us. A few things came to mind incl that I never expected to die in an Italian helicopter, to make myself as small as possible sitting on my flak vest, and that I was grateful that the turds doing the shooting had never been goose hunters as they never learned to lead a moving target.
 
Purple, you forgot to mention to those that don't realize that in between each of those lazy orbs the tracers represent were 4-5 non visible bullets. My thoughts would have been on how little protection the FLAK jacket under my butt would give from the effects of a 12.7/50 or 20mm round. It might be OK against small shoulder fired 7.62 or 5.56. I can understand your moment of anxiety.

I always felt sorry for peacekeepers in observation only roles. I saw more than one with tears running down their cheeks because they were not allowed to engage. I also saw them get hit and not able to fire back. It's a good thing those troops were mostly well trained and well led. There were of course exceptions and it was hard to tell the difference between the good and bad guys.

One afternoon there was a "chain gang" of local indigenous villagers that their chief had hired out to one of the farmers in our area. It was common practice then for the Jurras/Bantu to chain them up so they wouldn't run off before getting to the job. The runners would take off to the nearest cities and hide in the Barrios until they were caught without papers and returned for bounty to the Bantu. Not a darn thing you could do for those poor souls except die trying.
 
Everyone get on board the FLAK train!

14ab4456f1c36b50716391940e8b4d21.jpg


Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-639-4252-19A_Im_Osten_Panzerzug_mit_Gesch%C3%BCtz_und_Vierlingsflak.jpg


2czr589.jpg
 
I wonder if those Soviet trains with the T34 turrets had actual tank chassis under those turrets?? That main gun on the German train looks like it may have been salvaged or repurposed from something else as well. Maybe an WWI French field gun???
 
I would not want to be on one when the fighters show up. Trains are not exactly inconspicuous, traveling in a fixed line, can't maneuver. No thanks.
 
All very true as far as infantry vs aircraft. The above pic is from a Russian sniper school. The trainees are being taught how to lead aircraft. Not an easy shot by any means.

Unfortunately their eyes are so far back from the scopes that their field of view, if any, would be minuscule, and to acquire an aircraft target through a scope with maybe a 12° field of view is not easy at the best of times. Of course it is very hard to hold your head up against gravity when you are lying on the ground, so they should have rested the butts on the ground and turned part way onto their sides if they wanted to have much chance of seeing anything and actually aiming through the scope.

But that is assuming they are really aiming rather than just firing in the general direction. Only the guy just past the NCO appears to have anything like proper eye relief.

Still true that more than one plane was brought down by a skilled or lucky shot with a rifle, or a few rifles.
 
During WW1, "RED BARON" was shot down by a rifleman from the ground, I think.

It's been disputed for a long time who actually shot down Baron von Richthofen. An Australian machine gun crew on the ground claimed to have shot down Von Richthofen's Fokker Triplane, but the credit was given to Captain A. Roy Brown of the Royal Air Force.

However, given that the wound he suffered couldn't have come from Brown's plane as Brown was diving on Richthofen (the bullet entered from the side) its now generally accepted that a single round fired by an Aussie MG crew got the Red Baron.

He survived long enough to make a rough landing with his plane, but died soon after Australian soldiers got to his plane.
 
Roy Brown, who was Canadian, like about 1/3 of the RFC pilots, and most of the top RFC aces BTW, never claimed to have shot down Richtofen.
 
Last edited:
A USAAF pilot is reputed to have downed the Zero that shot him down while descending with his parachute. He used his 1911 .45 ACP.
 
I wonder if those Soviet trains with the T34 turrets had actual tank chassis under those turrets?? That main gun on the German train looks like it may have been salvaged or repurposed from something else as well. Maybe an WWI French field gun???

The use of immobile tanks or dismounted tank turrets in defensive positions can be quite effective, even though the tank has no mobility which is one of it's strongest assets.

The Germans used quite a few Panther tank turrets set in concrete bases in the Hitler Line and Gothic Line defences in Italy where they caused our people a lot of trouble.

I've seen immobile PzKWIV tanks set into fixed Syrian defensive positions on the Golan heights as well as Sherman tank hulls/turrets located in fixed perimeter defensive positions around Kibbutz's in northern Israel. The Syrians also had a few T34-85 turrets built into defensive berms in the Sasa area covering the main road from Kuneitra to Damascus. More recently I believe that the Swiss used some of our surplus Centurion hulls and turrets into their fixed defensive positions. A tank or dismounted turret in a hull down position still has a measure of additional protection from direct fire and still has a main gun and a coaxial MG which can be very effective. If there is any sort of air opposition its eventually toast once it has been located.

As our old Sherman driver's manual warned about doing maintenance, "Stalled tanks, dead tankers".
 
This still works; it's called "the golden BB". In the 2003 Iraq war a bunch of Iraqis took a lot of the starch out of an air assault by the 101st Airborne by just laying on their backs and hosing their AK 47s in the air hoping that something would fly into a bullet, and they did.

Worth noting as well that these guys (the Soviet soldiers) were not shooting at helicopters, of course.
 
Speaking of using tank turrets in fixed positions.

When the Centurions became obsolete and were phased out in favor of newer tanks in 1990(!!) the turrets were refitted for use in fixed positions.

The machine guns were removed, some additional armour was added and a FLIR sight of the latest generation was also put in. Because of the end of the cold war, only 21 bunkers were built and used until 2003.

During my service we once had the chance to have a look at a bunker after they were declassified in 2003.

Fotos~von~K$F6bi~uttinger~252.jpg


Fotos~von~K$F6bi~uttinger~255.jpg


Pictures from here:

http://www.unterirdischeschweiz.ch
 
Back
Top Bottom