So why exactly was the AK sighted for 2000m?

>>32462985
Why not?

>>32462985
That's not an AK, noguns. AKM sights only went up to 1000m.

>>32463026
Is it a mosin then?

>>32463098
Looks to be.

Where are my (You)s??

not op.

there was a big belief in volley fire in many circles pre-WWII. This is where you collect a large number of (bolt action) riflemen, get them to set a very large distance, and lob bullets in an artillery-like fashion. You have absolutely no accuracy, but you can saturate an area with quick moving projectiles. This idea was already on its way out by WWII, but sights tend to be easy to carry over from one rifle to the next with little modification...this makes users of earlier rifles more comfortable with the new model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire

>>32462985
Anti aircraft volley fire. Now you know. Fuck off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2EkEsvwARE

>>32463114
>>32463116
the hive mind has spoken.

its an ariska, type 99 Japanese rifle.

>>32463106
Have a (you), (you) deserve it this holiday season.

File: image_96.jpg (54KB, 240x430px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 240x430px

MFW you and your AR buddies can't volley fire and kill aircraft.
AR officially trash.

>>32463141
No, 4chan doesn't show (You)s anymore. It's just a barely visible dotted underline.

>>32463153
God damn it hiroshimoot!

>>32463114
this.

Maybe 10 years ago at an SA firearms Goonmeet, a bunch of guys tested this out by stretching a bedsheet out at 2000 meters, then firing several volleys. While it was impossible to aim effectively, most of the bullets went through the sheet. It really showed how effective it could be as suppressing fire or against massed infantry

Unfortunately the pictures of the bedsheet are now lost to waffleimages

>>32463180
heh that would have been fun to see. I imagine the proliferation of automatic weapons and the general idea of "spreading out" and not forming ranks would limit the effectiveness of volley fire in a modern setting. Can anyone think of a modern scenario when volleyfire would be a good thing?

File: CIA_Bill_Wilson_0.jpg (79KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 716x768px

>>32463153
Really? Pls reply as a test

>>32463471
death by firing squad?

>>32463487
tested. only if you reply to me as a test tho

File: pedersencut3460.jpg (113KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x1200px

>>32463114
I thought volley sights were designed for that... or are notched sights like OP's pic also considered volley sights?

>>32462985
2000 arshin

>>32463503
Here you go, thanks. I still got a (You) from you, but I'm using the Clover app on my phone.

>>32463507
Different design, same function.

I've got a K11, which has sights for 300m - 1500m. Have to hold it about a foot below where I want to shoot at 100yd, and most ranges near me are 100yd.

I'm really not sure why they thought this would be a good idea.

>>32463926
Because you don't know how to use it.

>>32463507
That's an anti aircraft sight.

>>32463985
Okay then, how am I supposed to do it, without swapping out the front sight with one of a different height?

>>32463164
I blame /pol/.

>>32463926
Military officers thought all future infantry action would occur at ranges greater than 300 meters.

During the switch to smokeless powder they looked at bullet trajectories with the new rifles and compared them to the trajectories of the old weapons vs. the ranges those older weapons were used.

They assumed that battles would always take place in the final 2/3rds of the average weapon's range just like they always had.

It never occurred to them that 300 meter gunfights had more to do with the soldiers and less to do with the rifles.

>>32464077
Makes sense I guess.

>>32463145
>not shooting at low level overflying aircraft with everything you have

Your whole platoon sees an enemy from 2000m.
You all aim and shoot.
The bullets fall like artillery.
Maybe one of them hits a target.

k

>>32464364

>one wounded
>enemy taking cover for a while

Not bad I suppose, especially in pre-WW2 times.

That seems like some really low elevation for 2000m

>>32463598
I dont think it was arshin post 1918

>>32463106
gook moot removed them

>>32463471
>Can anyone think of a modern scenario when volleyfire would be a good thing?

You could use it to suppress enemy in situations like Syria where that may be all you have. High angle volley fire can even reach shallow reverse slopes. Old WWI era military manuals had instructions for using it in trench warfare.

>>32462985

Volley fire for area targets

Taliban does it good with PKM cranked way up; mostly it only harasses you rather than inflicting causalities

>>32468705
Harassing fire is pretty effective.

>>32463098
Yes.

>>32462985
Because if you have enough rifles pointed at somebody angled about the right way, eventually ONE of them has to hit.

File: IMG_2915.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Volly/ anti aircraft fire

File: IMG_2916.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>32471258

>>32463471
It's a method of area denial for situations where you have no other support. The Vickers was famously used in this manner, as an indirect fire weapon, and replaced in British service in the 60s by a light mortar.

With the lack of static positions and the proliferation of things like mortars, grenade launchers, CAS, artillery, etc. it isn't very useful for modern fighting.

I guess if you found yourself under siege with no support, it could potentially be useful. Or as the other anon said, in a third world situation where you have no other means of harassing at a distance.

File: Jap Type 99 rear sight.jpg (88KB, 890x711px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 890x711px

>>32463998
no mate, its a volley sight- Heres a picture of an AA sight. There are super similar looking though