87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
HistoryPorn
4865 readers
191 users here now
If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.
Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!
HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts
Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings
Related Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Any more context on this image? My understanding is that AA guns are shockingly inefficient, and I'd expect a tank gun to be almost useless unless it's a specific tactical scenario.
I imagine it was most used against close air support, not high-altitude bombing. Seeing what to bomb in the dense woods would require flying pretty low and slow, which makes you a great target for a big semi-auto gun like this.
Another good motivator is that a bigass rifle is really flexible (sort of). You can shoot at vehicles, bunkers, snipers, harass tanks, and apparently also planes.
A twin-mounted full-auto variant was kept in service till the late 70s, mostly for anti-helicopter purposes, so it's probably a pretty decent piece of kit.
It probably was almost useless, but in WW2, such ad-hoc anti-aircraft measures were still attempted against dive bombers and the like.