Why train infantry to shoot at aircraft?

The Japanese trained their infantry to fire at aircraft. The Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle in 7.7mm was fitted, until late in the war, with an elaborate rear sight designed to compensate for the enormous lead needed to fire at enemy aircraft. It had side wings that folded away when not needed

Rufus123 said:

I know, my posts have been about odd ball stuff but I have read what you guys say about common things.

I have seen things giving instruction on how to engage aircraft with a service rifle. I remember looking at my fathers stuff there was even a booklet on shooting at aircraft with a 5.56 which can't be that effective.

How much of a threat can infantry rifles be? I would guess if enough people are doing this once in awhile an aircraft can be damaged.

I guess if flying low over a division and a few hundred start shooting at you someone might cause damage.

I really don't know what the truth is here but I assume since there were training booklets on such a thing it is worth trying if the conditions are right.

Click to expand...

One round in the right place can bring an aircraft down.

When in Iraq, we had an Apache that was escorting our Blackhawks during a mission taken down buy 7.62 rounds.

If nothing else, I am pretty sure no pilot feels comfortable when shot at by large numbers of infantry*.
It must have some sort of effect even if it doesn't often bring a plane down.

*A10 some heavily armoured helicopter pilots excepted, perhaps. That titanium bathtub must give them a lot of confidence.

Shortround6 said:

The Aa role was the primary reason for the High rate of fire of the MG 42. The high rate of fire was actually detrimental to it's role as a ground gun. However mounts like these:

View attachment 242788

View attachment 242789

Are in a different catagory than riflemen shooting their RIFLES even if full auto, at airplanes.

Click to expand...

I always though the high rate of fire for the MG42 was to get as many rounds as possible down range at the point of initial contact before your targets take cover. You will only have 1 or 2 seconds before everyone is out of sight, chop as many down as possible. It fitted well with the German use of the MG as the most important infatry weapon supported by the rifleman, Ive never heard it said it was primarily for AA use. I agree its high cyclic will make the 42 a better AA weapon but not sure it was its primary reason.

I wonder what the Red Baron would have say to about this thread.

pattle said:

I wonder what the Red Baron would have say to about this thread.

Click to expand...

He woud be thinking how to fit a minigun onto his Fokker

beitou said:

I always though the high rate of fire for the MG42 was to get as many rounds as possible down range at the point of initial contact before your targets take cover. You will only have 1 or 2 seconds before everyone is out of sight, chop as many down as possible. It fitted well with the German use of the MG as the most important infatry weapon supported by the rifleman, Ive never heard it said it was primarily for AA use. I agree its high cyclic will make the 42 a better AA weapon but not sure it was its primary reason.

Click to expand...

The MG 42 was a "general" purpose MG and needed to perform the roles of bipod mounted squad weapon, tripod mounted company or battalion MG and light AA gun. The Germans didn't field a weapon in the .50cal-12.7mm class for ground troops.
While the MG 42 was NOT "primarily for AA use" that was the primary reason for the high rate of fire, The action of the gun not being adjustable. The Bren gun as used by the British had a gas regulator with four positions. Normally the smallest was used and gave a rate of fire of about 600rpm, the next two sizes/positions were to be used to keep the functioning in dirty conditions. the last position ( largest gas port) could give a rate of fire of close to 1000rpm with a clean gun and was used for AA work, often with a high capacity drum magazine.
The MG 42 recoil mechanism cannot be readily adjusted for rate of fire (Italians did it post war with a removable weight in the bolt). 1200rpm is a bit too high a rate of fire, keeping the MG 42 on target is more of a problem than a slower firing gun, more recoil. It also chews up ammo faster.

My last post is not clear, I meant to say Ive never heard that the primary reason for a high cyclic rate was for AA rather than the primary use of the 42 was AA.