4 ms·

These are really neat. One photo has this caption: > Even using antiquated WWII rifles such as these, the Vietnamese were able to cripple or down many U.S. air

• anikan_vader 5y ago
  Small arms have a ceiling of around 10,000 ft, so aircraft flying at 5,000 ft would definitely be vulnerable. And 300mph is fairly slow compared to a small arms projectile traveling maybe 1700mph. Even today, fighter jets will often try to stay above 10,000 ft, roughly where small arms and flak peter out. I could easily imagine WWII rifles having some success damaging helicopters, which were (and compared to modern fighters still are) low and slow.
• meheleventyone 5y ago
  There were a bunch of Forward Air Controllers who flew smaller, slower planes much lower to direct air strikes. In particular those flying in support of SF missions flew low routinely. Although the predominant danger is still going to be flak and large machine guns rather than rifles. Then you also have attack helicopters and troop transport helicopters are particularly vulnerable whilst loading and unloading who all fly lower and slower.
• samus 5y ago
  Dive-bombing (no clue whether that tactic was/is still in use) and strafing aircraft fly a lot lower when attacking ground targets. The danger is so great that ground-attack planes like the A-10 Thunderbolt are designed with survivability in mind and carry a lot of armor.