special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,667
- May 13, 2018
The Arisaka aerial sight was not for use in the air but it was for the ground pounder to sight a strafing aircraft more accurately, i.e. lead.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Arisaka aerial sight was not for use in the air but it was for the ground pounder to sight a strafing aircraft more accurately, i.e. lead.
It just have been a terrible sight, when a cannon broke loose from it's ties and rampaged a gun deck in rough seas.There's also a reason why "loose cannon" is a metaphor for trouble coming from inside.
It just have been a terrible sight, when a cannon broke loose from it's ties and rampaged a gun deck in rough seas.
Can't argue with that. Especially since the rounds fired by an infantry rifle or light machine guns were hopelessly underpowered against a modern airplane of the time. Many nations started the war with aircraft mounting machine guns derived from those used on the battlefield, and that fired rifle rounds, only to switch to heavy machine guns or cannons soon afterwards.A 20-round magazine being fired off by a BAR gunner who is unsecured in the fuselage of a plane being piloted by a pilot presumably practicing evasive maneuvers. I don't see the utility of that (or an aerial sight on an Arisaka rifle, for that matter) outside of morale.
It turns out that the rifle calibre machine gun on the rear of a "Val" was effective against Fairey Fulmars. Most WWII fighters had the speed to pounce on bombers and get in and out of range of the defensive armament. The Fulmar was barely faster than the "Val", so the gunner had time to take aim and do damage.Can't argue with that. Especially since the rounds fired by an infantry rifle or light machine guns were hopelessly underpowered against a modern airplane of the time. Many nations started the war with aircraft mounting machine guns derived from those used on the battlefield, and that fired rifle rounds, only to switch to heavy machine guns or cannons soon afterwards.
In RL Scotts God Is My Co Pilot he talks about having Thompsons as def weapons while flying the Hump.Does anyone have information regarding BARs being carried as either emergency back-up or supplemental defensive weaponry on twin engine bombers early in the Pacific War. I remember reading about it but cannot locate it in any of my books. If memory serves me, a flight engineer described firing it from side windows as needed. I wonder how common that might have been, especially early in the war, before defensive firepower really came into being.
Much easier weapon to manage inside an in-flight aircraft. Kinda limited on range, though.In RL Scotts God Is My Co Pilot he talks about having Thompsons as def weapons while flying the Hump.
I think it, a BAR, or any other handheld weapon was more "comfort" oriented than capable.Much easier weapon to manage inside an in-flight aircraft. Kinda limited on range, though.
It would be better than the roll of toilet paper noted above.I think it, a BAR, or any other handheld weapon was more "comfort" oriented than capable.
Just my opine.
Cheers,
Biff
The Val was using a Lewis machine gun (license built) with a 97 round drum. The BAR used a 20 round magazine. With a BAR without a 2nd crewman our intrepid gunner would probably be at using at 3-6 seconds to change magazines, if he was lucky.It turns out that the rifle calibre machine gun on the rear of a "Val" was effective against Fairey Fulmars. Most WWII fighters had the speed to pounce on bombers and get in and out of range of the defensive armament. The Fulmar was barely faster than the "Val", so the gunner had time to take aim and do damage.
I don't think anybody is claiming that BARs, Tommy guns and rolls of toilet paper are effective, desirable weapons. You use what you have.The Val was using a Lewis machine gun (license built) with a 97 round drum. The BAR used a 20 round magazine. With a BAR without a 2nd crewman our intrepid gunner would probably be at using at 3-6 seconds to change magazines, if he was lucky.
True, but an effective, desirable weapon is part of a package.I don't think anybody is claiming that BARs, Tommy guns and rolls of toilet paper are effective, desirable weapons. You use what you have.
I guess it is a case of I'm willing to try anything to save my hide vs "why try it probably won't work". Mark me down on the side of "willing to try anything".How long do you think anyone firing from a " side window" would have anything in range and in sight to shoot at ?
Unless the attacking pilot was dumb enough to fly formation with you, you'd only be able to shoot at him maybe a second or so per pass anyway.