"Against fighters/attack aircraft non AD-dedicated  weapons are useless. Even old AA-guns are very limitedly effective. "

Well, what if the fighters/attack aircraft are flying low?

"An infantry platoon (or similar) utilizes its weapons in the best possible way by not shooting them at a fighter to reduce the probability to be detected by the plane."

Please somebody explain how to format the quotations on these boards - they always cause me problems.

The reality is that lots of weapons can be used against helicopters, though most non-AA types are only really useful when the helo is at low level and low speed. A lucky shot against a helo is not that unusual, it really just depends on the type of helo, in terms of how much damage it will do. This was the lesson the UK learned (though arguably didn't learn very well) in the Falklands, when Gazelle light helos were shot at by infantry, causing fatalities for the crew, which wouldn't have happened (at least not as easily) on better protected helos.

 

As for fighters, as already mentioned, infantry weapons are not going to do anything useful. As for AA guns, it depends entirely on how they are aimed, and as such, what type they are. A manually aimed ZU-23-2 is probably close to useless, but in contrast, the ZSU-23-4 is very deadly against low flying fighters, especially slower ones. This was always the worry for NATO during the Cold War, when tank-killing fighters and attack aircraft would have to fly low and slow to get a lock using Mavericks (pre IIR Maverick days), making them bait for the Shilkas. Of course nowadays the fighters have much better weapons, and thus would almost never put themselves in range of such systems, but there is always still the risk. As part of an integrated air defence system, with medium/high altitude SAMs, SHORADs, and radar guided AAA, then they are still very useful, even if they never fire a shot - their presence deters their enemy from flying a particular mission profile.

Mechanic       6/14/2007 1:02:09 PM An assault riffle/LMG can't be succesfuly used against a figther/attack aircraft period. I have had opportunity to be at the ground zero of simulated low level attack runs many times. If I ever find my self in similar situation but with live ammo I will direct my all and full efforts to get my self as much under ground as possible. There are always better places to hide and cover.   Quote    Reply

Lawman       6/14/2007 5:33:20 PM The reality is that lots of weapons can be used against helicopters, though most non-AA types are only really useful when the helo is at low level and low speed. A lucky shot against a helo is not that unusual, it really just depends on the type of helo, in terms of how much damage it will do. This was the lesson the UK learned (though arguably didn't learn very well) in the Falklands, when Gazelle light helos were shot at by infantry, causing fatalities for the crew, which wouldn't have happened (at least not as easily) on better protected helos.   As for fighters, as already mentioned, infantry weapons are not going to do anything useful. As for AA guns, it depends entirely on how they are aimed, and as such, what type they are. A manually aimed ZU-23-2 is probably close to useless, but in contrast, the ZSU-23-4 is very deadly against low flying fighters, especially slower ones. This was always the worry for NATO during the Cold War, when tank-killing fighters and attack aircraft would have to fly low and slow to get a lock using Mavericks (pre IIR Maverick days), making them bait for the Shilkas. Of course nowadays the fighters have much better weapons, and thus would almost never put themselves in range of such systems, but there is always still the risk. As part of an integrated air defence system, with medium/high altitude SAMs, SHORADs, and radar guided AAA, then they are still very useful, even if they never fire a shot - their presence deters their enemy from flying a particular mission profile.

 

I would have thought that even assault rifles and machine guns can shoot many kilometers high. Sure, at that height the accuracy is close to zero, but if the volume of fire is very high there could still be some non-zero effectiveness of that fire, no? Even if the bullets lose energy at their height, the high speed of aircraft would give them relative momentum.

 

I am also surprised that 'guided' (I presume by radar) AA guns are considered so effective. I would have thought them to be particularly vulnerable, since they have little range, yet are radar guarded, so can be detected from far away. Perhaps it would make sense to have them IR guided, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 6-mode programmable 40 and 57 mm 3P (prefragmented, programmable, proximity fuzed ammunition provides Bofors naval guns highest possible combat flexibility and new capabilities to deal with threats that previously were impossible to engage.

 

• Programmable for optimized effect and tactical flexibility.
• Air-burst capability.
• Immune to ECM.
• Powerful pre-fragmented shell.
• Maintained fuze triggering distance even at long firing ranges.
• Qualified as Insensitive Munitions with PBX explosives and LOVA-propellant.

Each 3P fuze is automatically and individually programmed by a Proximity Fuze Programmer (PFP) which continuously receives data from the Fire Control Computer. Immediately before firing the fuze is programmed to the selected mode. 

The following modes can be selected: 

• Gated proximity mode (air defence).
• Gated proximity mode with impact priority (air defence, large targets).
• Time mode (small fast, manoeuvring surface targets and concealed on-shore targets).
• Impact mode (surface targets).
• Armour piercing mode (armoured surface targets).
• Proximity mode (default mode).

 

Some direct benefits with 3P:

• Always the right ammunition for any target.
• Greater combat endurance with lower ammunition consumption.
• Fewer ammunition types required.
• Simplified transport and storage.