PDA

View Full Version : Yeah Right....I need prooofs! (Snipers owning low flying aircraft)



Airmail109
07-17-2007, 04:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39

"Although the weapon was not able to penetrate newer Soviet tanks like T-34 and KV-1, it still proved to be quite effective against bunker watchholes, long range targets, tank weak spots and even airplanes. With its superior accuracy, a skilled sniper could kill the pilot or at least the gunner of a low-flying IL-2 Sturmovik (flying low to avoid being seen) but such cases were rare. There was a fully automatic version of the L39 made in small numbers that served also as an AA gun."

Wot???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Snipers owning IL2 Sturmovik Pilots? LOLZ

HAHAHAHA

ARRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHA

Airmail109
07-17-2007, 04:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39

"Although the weapon was not able to penetrate newer Soviet tanks like T-34 and KV-1, it still proved to be quite effective against bunker watchholes, long range targets, tank weak spots and even airplanes. With its superior accuracy, a skilled sniper could kill the pilot or at least the gunner of a low-flying IL-2 Sturmovik (flying low to avoid being seen) but such cases were rare. There was a fully automatic version of the L39 made in small numbers that served also as an AA gun."

Wot???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Snipers owning IL2 Sturmovik Pilots? LOLZ

HAHAHAHA

ARRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHA

waffen-79
07-17-2007, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Snipers owning IL2 Sturmovik Pilots? LOLZ
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that sentence should read:

Snipers owning IL2 Sturmovik Pilots too? LOLZ

Capt.LoneRanger
07-17-2007, 04:24 PM
Well, if it is on wikipedia, then it must be true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

drose01
07-17-2007, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Well, if it is on wikipedia, then it must be true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wait a minute. There IS a lot of accurate information on Wikipedia, like about those wild black panthers roaming the English countryside.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 05:08 PM
There are stories of Hind helicopeters being shot down in Afghanistan by snipers with stock Lee Enfield bolt action rifles during the 70s. During takeoff and landing of course.

Korolov1986
07-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Pfft. I once took out a whole airbase with a satchel of hand grenades and a few surplus tires.

FritzGryphon
07-17-2007, 09:07 PM
Taking a 20mm AP shell in the engine or cockpit would certainly ruin your day. What's so surprising about that?

In fact, the specs look comparable to other 20mm cannons. The 30 rounds/second rate of fire looks suspect, though.

Besides being hard to aim by hand, it seems perfectly viable as an anti-aircraft weapon.

Alloy007P
07-17-2007, 09:39 PM
Snipers owning a IL2, LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/killerpussy.jpg

PBNA-Boosher
07-17-2007, 11:11 PM
I see no trouble if they could get a good six shot. Most planes weren't as well armored from underneath. Penetration shouldn't be a problem either, given that the gun was designed to go through tanks.

Badsight-
07-17-2007, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Although the weapon was not able to penetrate newer Soviet tanks like T-34 and KV-1, it still proved to be quite effective against bunker watchholes, long range targets, tank weak spots and even airplanes. With its superior accuracy, a skilled sniper could kill the pilot or at least the gunner of a low-flying IL-2 Sturmovik (flying low to avoid being seen) but such cases were rare. There was a fully automatic version of the L39 made in small numbers that served also as an AA gun." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that info is a copy & paste from other gun websites

that gun was used by the fins for air cover

Aimail101 may be surprised to know that tanks also are claimed to have scored direct hits on flying aircraft

LEBillfish
07-18-2007, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Well, if it is on wikipedia, then it must be true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wait a minute. There IS a lot of accurate information on Wikipedia, like about those wild black panthers roaming the English countryside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
07-18-2007, 01:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Taking a 20mm AP shell in the engine or cockpit would certainly ruin your day. What's so surprising about that?

In fact, the specs look comparable to other 20mm cannons. The 30 rounds/second rate of fire looks suspect, though.

Besides being hard to aim by hand, it seems perfectly viable as an anti-aircraft weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no doubt, that a 20mm AP shell can penetrate the armor of an aircraft, nor hitting an a/c with one of 30 bullets per second. But I have doubts that you can snipe a pilot or gunner, as this means you fire a single aimed shot to hit a 2m target flying at 400kph in 30-50m altitude. That must be some heck of a sniper.

This is a picture of what we're talking of here:
http://www.thegunzone.com/people/images/lahti.jpg

Edit: The gun has a ROF of 30Shots per Minute. That means, there is a break of at least 2 seconds between the shots - not to speak of reaiming the gun... How long do you have sight on a plane that fast at that altitude?
It's practical (roughly aimed) ROF was 15 shots per minute...

FritzGryphon
07-18-2007, 02:47 AM
Oh of course, per minute. I'm thinking more of shooting an IL-2 that's vulching your base. That'd be easy.

If you think about it, shooting from prone supported might even be more accurate than standing up with the gun balanced on a mount. At least for 1 shot.

That's a F!#$ing awesome gun...

Cajun76
07-18-2007, 03:06 AM
Ya, bona fide BFG. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
07-18-2007, 03:35 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/mountain/mountain.jpg

The proof is in the MOUNTAINS of ammunition fired. Even if one in a million does what is claimed ... just imagine the numbers of magic BB's that makes.

Raaaid should be along with his slide rule soon enough to sort it out.

Capt.LoneRanger
07-18-2007, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Oh of course, per minute. I'm thinking more of shooting an IL-2 that's vulching your base. That'd be easy.

If you think about it, shooting from prone supported might even be more accurate than standing up with the gun balanced on a mount. At least for 1 shot.

That's a F!#$ing awesome gun... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure.

But imagine how limited your firing arc is, when going prone. Must be pure luck, the a/c comes from the right angle. There's no duck and fire with this gun.

I think this is a good example for mixing things up on Wiki. It sounds like the same gun was used for Anti-Tank and Anti-Air, but if you only google a bit, you find the "20 pst kiv/39 Norsupyssy" was semi-action and used for Anti-Tank and sniping, while the "20 it kiv/39-44" was fully auto used for Anti-Aircraft-purposes. The later fired 80-100 shots per minute (a theoretical 275-325 rpm). Though they shared most parts, these were not the same guns.


With the same reasoning you could argue, the Cal50 HMG can snipe down a jet, just because it is used as AA-MG, but was also used as a sniping variant in Vietnam. Same weapon to most parts, but completely different configurations.

This surely has nothing to do with sniping and I doubt the Sniper-Variant was used as Anti-Aircraft gun.

Also nice to know, that the gun had a Rheinmetall-Barrel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

DuxCorvan
07-18-2007, 11:24 AM
That data was introduced there by Maddox staff to justify the next generation of SOW AI gunners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
07-18-2007, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
That data was introduced there by Maddox staff to justify the next generation of SOW AI gunners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, that explains it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
07-18-2007, 01:35 PM
This is a "mythbusters" trick question I bet.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif