Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finnish Army fires Stinger

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finnish Army fires Stinger

    Click image for larger version

Name:	f0d56fe6b02c231fd3c8613acfb250f29fd16335d5fd461d59ab85e32d4ec348.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	71.2 KB
ID:	699705

  • #2
    Why off a cherry picker?

    Comment


    • #3
      For what I can find they use them in forested areas of which they have a shed load. . Seems strange and I wonder how stable it would be although it would allow you to have a clear field of fire while concealed in the tree tops maybe, dont know for sure

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Why off a cherry picker?
        Finland is basically forest and lakes....especially in the area they expect to have to fight "someone", too dense to shoot through from ground level in a lot of areas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Why off a cherry picker?
          Its the long range version.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Why off a cherry picker?
            It's the long range version.

            Comment


            • #7
              High altitude version more like

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                Why off a cherry picker?
                They only chose selected targets.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Essentially, the target will be an easy one, such as a mortar-fired flare because they don't have a realistic target of an Su-24 doing 450 kts at 50 feet, which would pass a man standing in a Finnish forest in the blink of an eye, well before he could acquire it and launch a missile.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    Essentially, the target will be an easy one, such as a mortar-fired flare because they don't have a realistic target of an Su-24 doing 450 kts at 50 feet, which would pass a man standing in a Finnish forest in the blink of an eye, well before he could acquire it and launch a missile.
                    "As long as the firer gets the training value out of it who cares if it's not entirely realistic yada yada". Totally agree GTTC.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      AA training is always a case of optimism over experience. Unless you actually fly a fast jet over the firing area, the gun or missile crews are not going to a realistic idea of how fast those things move; a fighter doing 420 kts on the deck is doing seven miles a minute and they can often outrun the traverse rate of manually handles and aimed guns. An aircraft being well-flown at low level is hard to spot and hard to track and the history of anti-aircraft shows that they expend huge amount of lead per kill and that the kill rate of Manpads is very low. The Falklands was a case study in anti-aircraft warfare; some systems were so bad, they had their reputations blotted by achieving very few kills, the Blowpipe and Rapier being a case in point; some of the ship based missiles only achieved kills when the opposition inadvertantly cooperated by flying away in straight lines; the good old Bofors proved it's worth and the Argentinians proved the value of their 20 and 35mm systems and the British found that filling the sky with every available calibre knocked down a few aircraft and sent the rest home looking like sieves. Both sides recieved a severe education about dependency on missiles and electronics to do the job.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X