As far as I know, the Il-76 is the world’s only cargo aircraft equipped with a tail gun
Posted by Falabella_Stallion@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 192 comments
Falabella_Stallion@reddit (OP)
There’s an obscure anecdotal story that during the Soviet Afghan war, one of the only recorded instances of machine gun fire downing a missile was recorded, when a Soviet Air Force Il-76 en-route to Kabul was targeted by a Mujahadeen MANPAD, and through an incredible act of skill and luck, the rear gunner managed to take down the missile, the aircraft landing unharmed
pashalka31@reddit
In 1994 Viktor Bout was dispatched by an ex KGB officer, St Petersburg politician, and current mobster named Vladimir Putin to trade soviet surplus arms to the Taliban for heroin that the Russian Mafia who took over the government could use to enslave/trade to the people of Russia for their paper shares of the former Soviet socialist state awarded to them by Yeltsin.
Behind Trump and Epstein, Viktor Bout was the most important piece on Putins Russian mafia chessboard.
The Soviet Union was the largest war machine in world history. The entire economy was based on destroying the west. When it collapsed it had more arms than any empire in human history.
And those weapons all made it to every genocide, war, conflict, or massacre in the world by way of one man-
Viktor Bout.
From Charles Taylor in Liberia to the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia to the invasion of Ukraine, you can track it by its supply chain logistics.
Army runs on food, fuel, and ammunition. And they all get moved by way of the path of least resistance to their point of use.
For anyone whose army or gang ran ak-47's chambered in 7.62x39mm that means it came from Russia.
In 1994 Putin also engineered the Russian invasion of Chechnya. Since Kazakstan declared its independence, Chechnya and Iran became the necessary gateway to Afghanistan where the worlds heroin was produced in the 1990's.
Weapons are heavy so they tend to travel by rail or truck. So they take the low road rather than the high mountain pass as much as possible.
That path led through Iran.
Drugs are much lighter and easier to carry so in the 1990's they are the preferred currency of organized crime next to cash or more recently, crypto.
As Putin and his Mafia of gangsters traded the worlds largest surplus of guns for heroin, then traded the heroin for all the critical industry, oil and gas, metals, fertilizer, uranium etc that made them billionaires in Russia, they had almost everything they needed to complete their conversion from psychopathic street thug to legitimate respectable oligarch. ( Putin now makes $750M a day off of this war. )
But they were still trapped in the hyper violent hell on earth they themselves created between St. Petersburg and Moscow and wanted out.
So they laundered that money into the UK and US using Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump's commercial real estate. They tried Trump's casinos first but collapsed them under the mass of $1.4 TRILLION. It's a lot to hide in a craps table. But they made an asset out of Trump by having Epstein set up and produce a VHS of Trump raping a 13 year old little girl. (This was the video that DEA/FBI agent Bob Levinson was shown just before Russian intelligence baited him to their proxy state: Kish island Iran)
So they collapsed the casinos into bankruptcy, murdered Mark Etess, Jonathan Benanav, and Stephen Hyde and started using commercial real estate instead. They would hyperinflate the valuation, then sell it back and forth to each other passing the bulk of the cash back under the table.
As you worked 40-60 hrs a week to save up for a down payment on a house down the street and run comparables, the cost of your place went up 4-12x by comparison, but your wages didn't. So you paid the corruption tax multiple times. (You are the victim in Leticia James lawsuit against Trump and this is why he claims Mar-a-Lago is worth $1B and refuses to share his tax records.)
But it all tracked back to Viktor Bout and a Egyptian man named Al Zawahiri whom Putin brought into Russia between 1996-97, managed by young patriotic FSB officer named Alexander Litvenenko and cashflowed to fund an organization the Saud ruling family started called Al Qaeda. Al Zawahiri was the key man in Iran that allowed the Russian jewish Mafia to move those same guns and heroin through a muslim country as long as Putin could hold Iran as it's proxy state perpetually. (Same basic play as Assad in Syria until it collapsed and assad ran to Moscow. His replacement was a Al Qaeda operative handpicked by Al Zawahiri) Hence why Putin and Trump rely on their co-conspirator Netanyahu to pound the drum of Iranian nuclear capacity for 30+ years.
In 1999 Putin then blamed a non-existent islamic entity called the "Liberation Army of Dagestan" from Chechnya for blowing up some Russian apartment buildings. Putin committed that terrorism, but that started the "War on Terror" that 2 years later took U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Putin created the demand for the weapons he had in abundance by dragging the US into a 20 year war at the same time he started an economic war against the U.S. by devaluing the dollar with rigged real estate while leasing U.S. and EU politicians and podcasters cheaply and secretly (FBI Arctic Frost investigation that Trump had Patel disappear then fire every FBI agent that investigated him)
It was all enabled by the greed of wall street bankers and hedge fund managers who would do business with anyone for money: (Jeffrey Epstein and Jes Staley at JP Morgan Chase, Leon Black at Bank of America etc)
But it left an evidence trail of deep trafficking ruts through Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Putin invaded Ukraine as the decorruption audits for NATO and EU membership exposed his corruption there (Kolomoiskiy). Putin instructed Trump to assassinate the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as the General began realizing that the same drug gangs he fought earlier in his career were funded by the same people shooting at his men from Israel.
So when Viktor Bout was recorded by the DEA on the border of Colombia and Venezuela trading soviet rocket launchers for cocaine it stalled Putins operation.
Putin then used his asset Trump to clean up. Trumps son and security guard awarded a contract to Silvercorp (Jordan Goodreau) to send Luke Denman and Airan Berry into Venezuela where they were set up to be captured and traded back to the U.S. for Fat Leonard and Alex Saab. (Key men in Putins espionage and money laundering circuit)
Putin assassinated Litvenenko with polonium laced tea and kidnapped Britney Griner who was then traded for Putins most incriminating secret chess piece- Viktor Bout. Bandar Saud had ran interference in the UK demanding prime minister Tony Blair disband the special investigation unit researching Zawahiris Swiss accounts or he "would no longer be able to help the UK stop terrorism". The 7/7 bus and tube bombings in London sealed the deal and Blair disbanded the SIO. Tonys is now bolting out of retirement and on Trump's "board of peace" as his wife had been funded by both Prevezon (Russian real estate front) and the Saud ruling family via the Al Yamamah arms trafficking case she represented them in.
This is what "the Epstein files" is. During the Cold war there were only a few gateways across the iron curtain. Israel was the major one because it was formed in 1948 by 650,000 refugees. 70% were from the Soviet bloc. Robert Maxwell traded espionage stolen from the US to Moscow to build the IDF with arms smuggled through Ukraine. The Zionist Mafia created the Likud party/Netanyahu to control Israel at the same time they infiltrated the US Republican party via Ronald Reagan and Zionist operative Henry Kissinger managed all the U.S. presidents from inside the oval office. The Saud ruling family funded the Zionists for Iran Contra as Jeffrey epstein ran aviation logistics for les Wexner out of Rickenbacker AFB. Now they can't stop lying as their transnational corruption eats them alive.
Corruption is cancer. But it ALWAYS takes the path of least resistance-
Politicians and Billionaires.
Victor3-22@reddit
That's a cool story, but I'd bet a dollar the gunner never hit it. Far more likely the Afghans just launched from too far away, and the missile self destructed before reaching the plane. (Although, I'd claim a gun kill to if I was that tall gunner)
EventAccomplished976@reddit
First thing you learn when joining any airforce in history: if you hear rumours of something being destroyed while you were somewhere in the same post code, put it on your kill list.
curious-chineur@reddit
Understanbale. Imo.
Then, why kit crédit this gunner with a 1 in a million lucky shot ?
Historical records are fulk with this type of odds.
I would not be surprised it happened.
We are almost talking COD sniper hit that downs an f16.
But then, the plane landed and they testified.
kharakternik@reddit
Morale, propaganda or just not wanting to dispute it. Dude shot at a missile, missile exploded, take the PR victory.
Blank_bill@reddit
Million to one shots happen 9 times out of 10 .
JoshYx@reddit
Well, 60% of the time, I hit those every time.
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
There's a similar story about some Israeli gunner on a missile boat taking down a Styx missile with I think a .50 (maybe a 20mm) which sounds cool but chances are the weapon simply malfunctioned.
katamuro@reddit
honeslty in the situation the gunner wouldn't have a clue why it exploded
spiritplumber@reddit
the gunner will never have to pay for a drink again
OGRuddawg@reddit
I bet he had the weirdest combo of a relief and feat of skill boner lol
the_friendly_one@reddit
PTSD to follow
Diggy_Soze@reddit
For real. I don’t think I’d ever get over it. For the rest of my life I’d ptsd-flashback to this moment, every time someone lobbed a missile at me.
finnishinsider@reddit
Came home and wife bitches about him always being late
Individual_Dirt_3365@reddit
That gun purpose was to repell radar or heat guided rockets. It was loaded only with special heat or radar distortion ammo.
AutonomousOrganism@reddit
Why would you need a gun for that? Just have normal flare and chaff dispensers, much simpler and weights much less.
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
Can't create a cloud far away from plane. Your plane can fly forward from the dropped plane, but you cannot create it at a range
Individual_Dirt_3365@reddit
Ask Henrihg Novozilov about it.
Imprezzed@reddit
Please explain to the class what “radar distortion ammo” is.
Outsider_4@reddit
Probably something like chaff but on round with timed detonation?
Imprezzed@reddit
Okay…but chaff dispensers exist.
hibikikun@reddit
This one is the chaff bunghole dispenser
Outsider_4@reddit
Yeah, but it dispenses it near the aircraft
I believe that fitting chaff into a round would allow to make a cloud of chaff further away from aircraft, probably aiming to make a second separate target that missile could target?
Imprezzed@reddit
Do you have any shred of proof that that’s what this system is, or are we going down a theoretical rabbit hole?
TheSublimeGoose@reddit
The Soviets did have some pretty wild aerial munitions.
I wrote my master's thesis on WWII heavy fighters, and found that they employed "aerial grenades" during the conflict. Essentially they were HEF charges with parachutes. Designed to defend against incoming interceptors or to be dropped into "combat box" formations of enemy bombers.
And they did have 23mm chaff ammunition:
https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/projectiles/23mm-prl-old-am-23-projectile
Regardless, fuzed HE, HE-I, HE-F, HEI-F, etc rounds are definitely a thing and have been since early WWII
Arian51@reddit
What are these aerial grenades called
TheSublimeGoose@reddit
Believe the launcher was the DAG-10 and the grenades themselves were like "AG-1" and "AG-2"
Raymjb1@reddit
Woah that's awesome!!! Is your thesis published online? That sounds pretty interesting. Also did the aerial grenades get any use/success?
And the fuzed rounds you mention, are you referring to anti air ground weapons or airplane guns? Iirc I've known of some German planes with them but that's all
TheSublimeGoose@reddit
It's probably available via my university's library but I don't want to doxx myself.
Yes, there are anecdotal stories of success, mostly via Soviet pilots' autobiographies/memoirs. I recall one instance where Soviet bombers spotted incoming Fw 190s and dropped a trail of grenades. They claimed at least one kill with them in this instance.
The Germans definitely had fuzed rounds, but so did the Italians (HE 12.7mm Breda rounds), and the Japanese (they imported those Italian rounds for the Ho 103, along with their domestic version, the Ma 103 fuzed HEI round).
As far as the Soviets, it's anyone's guess. Not only do you have to account for lend-lease, but there are translation errors, people just writing things without understanding what they mean (for instance, not differentiating between timed-fuzes, timed self-destroying fuzes, point-detonation fuzes, etc)
My point was simply that we know multiple nations had timed self-destroying fuzes for aerial weapons; it is therefore something the Soviets could have developed. And clearly did, given the 23mm "chaff" round. If they were experimenting with chaff, one must assume they were also experimenting with heat countermeasures. I could see some advantages to this. You could get the heat sources away from the defending aircraft.
The downside is that it would be brief flash of heat, and then nothing; unlike flares, which would burn for a bit. If you failed to fire the rounds at a very sharp angle relative to the defending aircraft, the seeker might simply re-acquire said airframe. lt might have been effective against first- and second-generation IR missiles. Maybe would have offered some protection against mid-generation Sidewinders (AIM-9L, M, certain P variants, and S) but would likely be largely useless against something like the AIM-9X.
T65Bx@reddit
Apologies coming in late, and I’m astounded nobody else mentioned this (unless they did and I missed it): Even it’s not actually true, it’s a very widely made claim across all jets that use a Gsh-23 in their tail.
Outsider_4@reddit
Oh yeah, no, it's a theoretical rabbit hole
I started looking for existing types of 23x115mm rounds and came to conclusion that this thing was, as it indeed was in reality, a radar-guided manually operated self-defense system and was fitted with standard AP/HE rounds.
SquirrelNormal@reddit
Huh, it does seem to exist. PRL ammunition for 23x115mm guns.
https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/projectiles/23mm-prl-new-am-23-projectile
Now, if it was ever used, is another matter.
Outsider_4@reddit
Now there's a surprise, good to know, thank you
MaleierMafketel@reddit
“I have an idea for a new ammunition type!”
“We have no need for it. Current ammo types cover all our tactical needs.”
“But sir… The blueprints revealed themselves to u/Outsider_4 in a dream.”
“Put it to production. Immediately.”
Imprezzed@reddit
Jesus Christ. Gotta love Soviet ingenuity.
Demolition_Mike@reddit
Cartriges loaded with chaff
Individual_Dirt_3365@reddit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)
Imprezzed@reddit
This is something completely different than this. Chaff is not dispensed via Machine Gun 😂
RatherGoodDog@reddit
Yes they are on an Il-76.
T65Bx@reddit
And Tu-22M and Tu-95M
Imprezzed@reddit
Jesus Christ. Gotta love Soviet ingenuity.
Individual_Dirt_3365@reddit
АМ-23 ДОС-15 ammo for ГШ-23 airborne gun
PsychologicalGlass47@reddit
Chaff..?
Mackey_Corp@reddit
Manual PDC’s
SuperEtenbard@reddit
Previously on the Expanse…
YCheez@reddit
Here comes the juice!
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
Hash. It's called Hash.
BasedMaduro@reddit
"I'm putting her into a spin!"
DiosMIO_Limon@reddit
wiedziu@reddit
Remember the Cant
PatchesMaps@reddit
Optimal_Law_4254@reddit
Captain now. Camina later.
glizzytwister@reddit
Incoming torpedoes in PDC range, one minute!
2ndHandRocketScience@reddit
The gunner was That Guy
PsychologicalGlass47@reddit
Seeing as it fired the aerospace equivalent of buckshot at it, I'm not surprised.
xarospi2andmad@reddit
“Great kid, don’t get cocky!”
winchester_mcsweet@reddit
I can vividly hear the music while reading that lol
Demolition_Mike@reddit
Wasn't there also an SA-2 shot down by a B-52, or am I misremembering
AmazingPangolin9315@reddit
That rear gun has radar-guided targeting, there's not as much skill or luck involved as people seem to thing. The rear facing radar for the gun is in that oval shaped radome above the gunner's window.
Strega007@reddit
That would be extremely difficult to accomplish, considering the corkscrew flight path of the SA-7.
KnightofWhen@reddit
It’s a radar assisted 23mm AA cannon. It’s got a chance.
Strega007@reddit
Radar ranging on a MANPAD in flight? Riiiiiiight.
probablyabot427@reddit
Definitely used aim assist
characterfan123@reddit
"Great kid. Don't get cocky."
DrStalker@reddit
I'm not sure what sort of situation requires a cargo plane to have a tailgunner, but I bet when it happens they are really glad to have one.
usernmtkn@reddit
Sky pirates.
Ambiorix33@reddit
tbh its probably left over design doctrine that never got updated. You can see the others have it removed except one image.
It would literally not help with anything. Its not like it can shoot down any missiles, and no plane or helicopter meant to take it down would get so close to make it useful.
Boiofthetimes@reddit
Oh boy, do I have news for YOU
Ambiorix33@reddit
if you're gonne be the Nth person to comment how someone did in Afghanistant, I'll repeat:
Its anecdotal, literally ''trust me bro''
Theres no supporting documentation or anyone else who came forward to verify the claim
People are literally clinging on to a bar story someone probably made up to make their shitty tour sound more interesting, happens all the time
Avarus_Lux@reddit
keep a gunner in there for a hostile LZ... only thing that comes to mind as that's a high nice firing position when the LZ becomes hot... anything else these days is either going to be very circumstantial, luck or stays out of range anyway.
SparrowFate@reddit
I’d argue it would be better to have a bubble with a turret either on top or on the belly if the plan is to use it for defending the aircraft on the ground
Avarus_Lux@reddit
For sure, though my imagination had to work with what we got... and that's just a remaining lonely tail turret meant for action from a bygone era.
Ambiorix33@reddit
thats not really a possible scenario. This isnt a helicopter or a VTOL aircraft, its a pure logistics aircraft, so functions on the strategic level.
You need a huge runway to make these things fly, you need safe conditions for take off and landing, and even if this was the purpose youd put the guns on the sides, not the back where it can only cover one small section.
This would be the FIRST thing to take off days before anyone got close to the airport. You'd never send this to do anything in any place that had the slightest chance of damaging it already in the area.
And even if you wanted to say use it to cover you while you dropped paratroops, thats also pointless as you wouldnt send an air assault in any place where the plane would be at risk, and it would be increidbly ineffective at shooting at people on the ground because of the angles of depression it was and just what the gunner can see
metageeek@reddit
All very valid points, but never underestimate the incompetence of Soviet/Russian military planning.
FreeUsernameInBox@reddit
That's exactly what it was for. Soviet doctrine absolutely called for airborne forces to play an offensive role, which would necessarily involve operating transport aircraft in hostile environments.
The operation against Hostomel Airport during the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the kind of thing that the Soviet Union planned on using airborne forces for. You can't reach (say) Rhein-Main Air Base with helicopters. But putting a regiment of paratroops with light armoured vehicles there would really screw up REFORGER plans.
If you've got a stream of a couple of dozen Il-76s carrying out a regiment-scale airborne operation, defensive armament starts making sense. Without all-aspect seekers, which didn't become commonplace until the 1980s, tail guns have a real chance of screwing up a fighter attack with IR-guided missiles.
Ambiorix33@reddit
Except Hostomel WAS done with Helicopters, not planes, CERTAINLY nothing this big, cose something this big would be shot out of the sky instant and have very little chance to defend itself, while if 1 in 200 helicopters goes down its not as big a deal.
So no, they didnt have this turret to help in airborne assaults. Becasue you dont do those with big planes if the threat on the ground actually has AA
FreeUsernameInBox@reddit
Hostomel was much closer to Russian bases, so the higher risk approach of a parachute landing wasn't needed. To go after the logistics bases west of the Rhine, even with bases in East Germany, fixed wing transport would be needed. And to drop Soviet airborne units with light armoured vehicles, big aircraft would be needed.
Incidentally, Hostomel used no more than 35 transport helicopters - which is comparable to the number of large airlifters you'd need for a regimental airdrop several hundred kilometres beyond the FLOT.
It's nothing to do with ground defences. You're quite right that tail guns would be almost entirely useless against them. It's to do with protection against fighters when the aircraft are inbound to the drop zone. Yes, there'd be a fighter escort. But something always gets through the escort.
Remember that these aircraft were designed in the 1960s, when BVR air combat was very much theoretical - and the experience of Vietnam was suggesting that the theory was a bad one. The expectation was still that most air-to-air attacks would be within visual range, from astern. Tail guns are sufficiently good at countering that kind of attack that they were one of the factors leading to the development of all-aspect weapons.
And this is also in the context of WW3. Losses are expected. In a parachute operation, you're expecting 10% casualties even if the enemy doesn't fire a shot. It might well be acceptable to lose a regiment of airborne troops and a couple of squadrons of air transports to tie down a couple of the opposition's divisions and delay a couple more from being combat effective.
Ambiorix33@reddit
Yes im not arguing against it for the 60s im argue against it for NOW.
And no, its never acceptable even to the Russians or ANY modern military to lose an entire airborne troop cose they put all their eggs in the same basket.
This. Is. Not. A. Plane for dropping over contest areas. This is a plane to drop far from any one so your paras can group up and be effective. You use this on the frontline you are feeding troops for ZERO gain.
Dont take Call of Duty Modern Warfare campaign strats as soemthing anyone with any 21st century military education would do. Its stupid and ineffective and even the Russians wouldn't do it cose there are.more efficient options.
FreeUsernameInBox@reddit
It was designed in the 1960s. So it has the design features of a 1960s aircraft. Removing the tail gun position doesn't actually benefit them, and adds cost - if it's not useful, they just don't use it.
They're designed for a scenario when you have a lot of eggs so you need big baskets. One Il-76 is delivering a single airborne mechanised platoon of three BMDs and crews. A squadron is delivering a battalion, or three squadrons a full regiment. Smaller aircraft would require putting more aircraft and crews at risk, as well as spreading out the airborne forces over a larger area and reducing their effectiveness.
All military operations fundamentally come down to sacrificing your troops lives (ideally as few of them as possible) to achieve some objective. No, you don't waste them. But in a war involving dozens or hundreds of divisions, sending battalions or regiments on the kind of missions where the survivors are guaranteed medals can be acceptable, if the result justifies the cost.
Correct. You drop Airborne Forces (a separate branch of service) several hundred kilometres beyond FLOT, while air assault troops (part of the Army) are airlanded tens of kilometres beyond FLOT. Regardless of how you think doctrine ought to work, that's how Soviet doctrine worked when the aircraft was designed.
That means your air transports need to survive several hundred kilometres in contested airspace, and may need fairly long range for evasive routing and to accommodate basing requirements. Combine with a requirement to drop a mechanised platoon, and you get a big aircraft with some self-protection capability.
Why would anyone assume a video game has anything to do with reality?
Automatic_Bit1426@reddit
Interesting discussion. However I'm not to sure about the purpose of paratroopers being dropped hundreds of kilometers behind the FLET as they need to be relieved by the main force as soon as possible.
FreeUsernameInBox@reddit
The purpose is to seize the objectives that make possible the advance of several hundred kilometres in a few days by the Operational Manoeuvre Group.
greenizdabest@reddit
Rule of cool
Youngstown_WuTang@reddit
😂, you win Reddit
chenkie@reddit
Bot ass comment + account
Youngstown_WuTang@reddit
Enjoy your block 🚫
Avarus_Lux@reddit
i'm not saying it's the most effective, with a 100 degree ish cone of fire seeing it can go a maximum of 50 ish left and right and probably the same 50 up and down, it's not going to do much indeed... the radar above is... not going to do much in flight either as anything within it's range is already doing something wrong in this day and age.
just saying that LZ cover is pretty much all i could think of these days.
i'm also not talking paratrooper cover or anything like that... just like in the photo, hangar doors open and it's sitting there. the gunner up there is extra surveillance. even if they don't see much... if they get shot, or shoot themselves that's a good warning i suppose and a clear indicator shit gone wrong... very wrong.
at this point in time these are mostly there for intimidation factor and rule of cool at best. pretty much a remnant of early to mid cold war design and doctrine.
Ambiorix33@reddit
thats thte thing, what you're describing would only be relevant in a Rambo movie :P
Why have a plane with an elevated MG nest that more often than not will point in the wrong direction when: any airport this thing would land in would have Force Protection personnel around it, their own machine gun nests, fences and towers?
its like saying we should put machine gun nests on A400M's noses JUST IN CASE the universe lines up when that would ever be useful :P its just more weight and an extra crew member, which is why more often than not, their removed
Barlispots@reddit
Well ya never know with Russian military what bonkers situation you’ll end up in.
Avarus_Lux@reddit
yeah, i agree so its as i said before, the only use i can think of haha.
it doesn't make much sense anymore today, back in the mig 19 days or even mig 21 days... it had a purpose even if limited. just like old US bombers had them but phased them out.
today, not so much. hence, glorified MG nest... in a rambo movie... or in this case the russian millitary. i'm perfectly fin with them wasting resources on silly things :)
beipphine@reddit
Parts of NATO still operate the F-4 Phantom II in a military capacity. As we are finding out in the war in the ukraine, just because there is better more modern technology out there doesn't mean that the ancient stuff isn't still deadly.
Avarus_Lux@reddit
old weaponry is still deadly as it's still a functioning weapons platform, agreed. a sword today is as deadly as it was 1000s of years ago, a musket will still punch a golfball sized hole through someone if it connects. modern stuff has it's advantages, and old stuff can work just fine all the same.
however intended role, performance and modern context is important.
as modern rear defensive option in the air the reaction time is too slow, too imprecise and the range of this 20/23mm tail gun is a lot shorter then any of the even remotely modern missiles that would be used against the aircraft carrying it. so unless it can accurately shoot down said incoming missiles it virtually is nothing but a morale booster where airman Igor can say to their pilot they see something incoming moments before they get hit without much chance to deter the threat.
on the ground it likely readily makes minced meat out of any infantry or light vehicle it could be aimed at as elevated HMG position, but besides covering the entryway/cargo bay area when landed that's such a niche usage case and such a relatively small angle of defence/attack that's likely not something it can be reliably used for either. especially considering airfields and runways usually have their own defences in place as well which if breached, you're probably focked anyway in a aircraft as large and cumbersome as a cargoplane.
ArcticBiologist@reddit
Top comment: "It actually shot down a missile once!"
Ambiorix33@reddit
Once, anecdotely, with 0 evidence or documentation to back it up :p
ArcticBiologist@reddit
Didn't mean to rag on you, just found the contrast funny
Berlin_GBD@reddit
Modern IL-76's aren't armed with it anymore. It was eventually updated, but some of those original airframes are still in use.
wonderhorsemercury@reddit
I believe that only some of the military variants had tail guns, too
No-Bag-2844@reddit
Well About The Missile Thing........
themortalrealm@reddit
Hah the top comment is someone recounting a story of a tail gunner shooting down a missile heading right for them
Jessie_C_2646@reddit
It was specified for the military variants. When they were sold out of service, the gun position was retained, but of course the guns themselves were removed.
Any photographed in Aeroflot colours but with the guns in place were actually military aircraft. The Soviet Union did that a lot in order that they could claim to be performing 'peaceful civilian' cargo deliveries.
GhostPepperDaddy@reddit
The top comment is literally about a rear gunner in one of these shooting down a missile lol
Ambiorix33@reddit
Its an anecdote and if you look it up, there is 0 documentation supporting that it ever happened.
Literally a ''trust me bro'' story that people make up all the time to make their tour more exciting sounding instead of the countless hours of waiting around
cvnh@reddit
They were designed back in the 60s, when heat seeking missiles were not as advanced.as with the B-52, they were used through the 80s-90s before being deleted. Mind that the IL-76 still has an attack version similar to the C-130 where the tail gun is still used, mostly against ground targets, although the utility of the concept in both versions is rather questionable.
_esci@reddit
it did once!
Ambiorix33@reddit
wait for real? when?
_SBV_@reddit
OP already answered that: Soviet-Afghan war, Soviet plane chased by Mujahideen missile, gunner shoots it
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
They were meant to carry out deep airborne operations behind NATO lines over what would be the most contested air environment in history.
Tasty-Fox9030@reddit
Tbh that was probably a nice thing to have while unloading in Afghanistan.
Some_Distant_Memory@reddit
Haven’t you seen the Dark Knight Rises?
Sevastous-of-Caria@reddit
Afghanistan...
SkankhlHunt420@reddit
Somali pirates not only attack ships but they attack cargo planes! That's why lmao
waldo--pepper@reddit
It was Soviet doctrine to have the ostensibly civilian fleet able to be rapidly incorporated into the military fleet. So they built them all the same. This one pictured must have been pressed ganged in effect. The rear gun mount was there. All that was needed was to fit the weapon. And some other bits and bobs, and presto. Militarized aircraft ready to go into harms way.
Drenlin@reddit
It's a military transport plane designed at a time when fighters still shot stuff down with guns.
That bit was already obsolete by the time this went into production, though. Designed in the 60s but produced in the 70s.
hypercomms2001@reddit
… but why? I have always imagined that this is a throwback to the original TU-4 Bomber which was a direct copy of the American B-29 bomber, in which mother was allowed to be changed…..
Shoddy-Cupcake-8855@reddit
No true. FedEx uses a similar system./s
Firm-Investigator18@reddit
Must be air pirates
NeoNirvana@reddit
That would be such a simultaneously cool and cozy job to have.
VirginiaDare1587@reddit
An a possibly apocryphal story, a C-130 was assign to Red Force at Red Flag exercise.
Blue Force F-15 catches poor C-130 and rolls in for a guns kill. Blue pilot mildly curious why C-130’s ramp was partially down and there was a flashing light from the open ramp.
F-15 pilot shocked when he was told he had been shot down before he got his easy ‘kill’.
He had forgotten C-130 was representing a Red Force Antonov An-12.
With tail guns.
C-130 crew put their loadmaster on the partially open ramp and gave him a strobe light to visually represent the An-12’s twin cannon.
;-)
Flairion623@reddit
Actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it. A missile is much more expensive than however many 20mm bullets are gonna shoot down a slow, unmaneuverable plane. Not as expensive as the plane itself but still. You’re forcing the enemy to use a more expensive munition they could’ve used to instead shoot down say a fighter or bomber. Could this be made completely redundant by attacking from any direction that’s not the rear? Yes. But forcing your enemy to think is still a win
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
It's more a function of magazine depth. These were meant to be sent in large waves to affect strategic airborne operations and defending fighters could very easily expend all their missiles (doubtless on some of the comrades of the aircraft) leaving them with just guns. Additionally, it's protection against opportunistic attack aircraft that might not be carrying (m)any missiles.
BrtFrkwr@reddit
It was common for Soviet cargo aircraft, and even airliners, to be quickly convertible into bombers.
Pootis_1@reddit
Why would they want a bunch of subpar bombers over using the cargo aircraft and airliners to move equipment and personnel?
BrtFrkwr@reddit
Their memories of WWII when they had to put anything that would fly into the air.
JakeGrey@reddit
That and a lot of their early airlines were essentially just bomber airframes with extra windows and no belly doors, so there wasn't much reason not to make provision for it just in case.
Nice_Anybody2983@reddit
That actually sounds like a good concept, most military planes are only used in training and exercises and other than that gather dust until they're obsolete. Why not make them easily convertible into passenger planes?
H3xag0n3@reddit
F22 passenger plane when
Pootis_1@reddit
The soviets also had shit to transport shut n event of a major war though.
Military airlift is in itself a useful capability.
wonderhorsemercury@reddit
haven't you seen Avatar?
blueshirt21@reddit
It’s more like the cargo planes are subpar cargo planes that can be converted back into a bomber
SausageMcWonderpants@reddit
Soviet cargo planes were absolutely fine, which is why thousands are still flying around.
lottaKivaari@reddit
The Sudanese "Air Force" consists of a handful of ancient AN-12s used for dropping barrel bombs on supposed RSF positions. These aircraft operate in some of the most hostile environments any aircraft ever has had to endure and are somehow still going. I bring this up to show how they were and are excellent aircraft and absolutely can serve as a bomber.
Impressive_Doorknob7@reddit
First pic looks like something out of Star Wars
baldude69@reddit
Star Wars design was very heavily influenced by 60s/70s aeronautics so definitely makes sense!
PPNed1999@reddit
And an emergency exit !!!
InYosefWeTrust@reddit
MV-22 is technically a cargo aircraft. Sure, the tailgunner is on the ramp, but the machine gun is mounted.
vtol_ssto@reddit
The Antonov An-12 also has a tail gun, it looks more or less identical to the one on the Il-76
SensitivePotato44@reddit
It looks very similar to the one carried by the TU-14 as well. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Soviets had a single design that was shoehorned onto everything
SparrowFate@reddit
Whatever you do do not look at the M2 Browning in every vehicle the US has ever made (god bless saint browning)
RedOtta019@reddit
Its the old B-17 tail gun design that went to the B-29 that the Soviets copied to the TU-4
Jessie_C_2646@reddit
Pretty much, yes.
ReactiveBat@reddit
Legit what is the use case? Anti-fighters? Anti-Missile? Ground-Attack?
veljaaftonijevic@reddit
The second image is pure Kino
yt1300pilot@reddit
Depends on what you consider cargo ;)
UglyLikeCaillou@reddit
You need it when landing planes in sketchy parts of the world, I imagine picture 2 is holding security.
Ag-Heavy@reddit
Them must have been transporting toilet paper during the pandemic.
notasthenameimplies@reddit
Not equipped with but equipped for.
whaticism@reddit
Set down tiamat’s wrath, open Reddit, see this. Weird
furclone@reddit
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate the man with the office chair?
furclone@reddit
It appears he is contemplating the sad life of a traffic cone.
ghstkatt@reddit
Best of all, the guns retract when not in use.
miss_shivers@reddit
The one situation this would be most useful is in WWZ when they are trying to escape from a horse of zombies into the cargo plane.
Kittendorf@reddit
The B-52 is a KIND of cargo aircraft.
vorpelbunny830@reddit
In case of sky pirates.
agha0013@reddit
AN-12 also had the same kind of arrangement, also primarily a cargo transport.
Both were designed for military use before they were put to civilian use.
General-Ninja9228@reddit
Soviet cargo and commercial aircraft were unique in some having bombardier glass noses and tail guns. I was speculating as to why that was, was it in case they needed to be pressed into service as bombers?
Aggravating-Rough281@reddit
The Antonov AN-12 would like to talk to you…
Primary_Channel5427@reddit
Ju52s had an open machine gun on top
AvalancheJoseki@reddit
Indiana Jones vibes with the second pic
Armybob112@reddit
I'd love to fly a trip back there.
archboy1971@reddit
They don’t mess around with workers tossing luggage around…lol
Cmirk17@reddit
That solider in an office chair just waiting. Peak Russia
MrM1Garand25@reddit
That the Kabul withdraw in the second pic?
YogurtclosetJumpy770@reddit
That gunner got laid that night for sure.
Juusonk@reddit
No it is not AN-12 has it also. AN-12
oldluster@reddit
No. An-12B, BK Cub too
ifitpleasemlord@reddit
That will do fuck all
isaac32767@reddit
Antonov AN-12 also has a tail gun.
dmetropolitain@reddit
Sometimes you might find that they attach FAB bomb on the pylons
SuperCoolAwesome@reddit
possibilistic@reddit
It does look like a Vogon!
Slow-Barracuda-818@reddit
Now that's what I call an office with a view
Uranophane@reddit
It's to deter those pesky air-pirates.
Kibblinatorrrr@reddit
The AN-12 also features a tail gun
BrrrtsBees@reddit
These are typically loaded with 23mm flare and airbursting chaff rounds that are directed towards a threat.
xerberos@reddit
Lol, all their tail gun assemblies look exactly the same. Here's the same one on a Tu-95:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c7/ba/54/c7ba54f22c41deeca8ea00bd7ee5eaa1.jpg
Rescueodie@reddit
I think the AN-12 had provisions for a tail gun as well.
Derk_Bent@reddit
Yeah man, that’ll totally work against an explosive telephone pole flying at Mach Jesus.
Nobody275@reddit
Like most Russian things - kind of dumb. Zero point to this.
SFAoperative@reddit
What is that door for? Doesn't seem very useful for regular access, given its position.
miksy_oo@reddit
Escape hatch.
gnartato@reddit
Looks like they need to push against the flow of air from front to back to open it. I'm guessing it's more meant for while on the ground. Wonder if there's a handle/rope on a pully system to get down like the 747 has.
superarroto@reddit
The Antonov an 12 says hello
Realistic-Bid9464@reddit
Third image looks like a Chinook's nose attached to the tail section of the '76.
Top_Pay_5352@reddit
An12 had the same
backcountry57@reddit
I'm looking at the photo showing the access door, is that position accessible from the aircraft?
JSpencer999@reddit
...and here it is going BRRRR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8ZdRiKqjo
Falabella_Stallion@reddit (OP)
There have been longstanding rumors that the tail gunner ‘birds nest’ had the ability to be ejected free from the rest of the aircraft, as a kind of escape capsule, but there hasn’t been any official confirmation (for obvious reasons)
Gizombo@reddit
seems more likely that the gunner just gets out from the door on the side than some sophisticated ejection system
Pulse-Doppler13@reddit
what is the regulation for tail guns ? im guessing not many countries would appreciate an armed cargo plane to land in their airports. are there any restrictions ?
lottaKivaari@reddit
These were designed as military aircraft meant to transverse the Soviet Union or a war zone, so when these were constructed, that wouldn't have been much of a consideration. There were other Soviet aircraft used for diplomatic envoys. But there are special regulations for allowing military (i.e. armed) aircraft within and around a nation's airspace, but I believe it has to be agreed upon. That's how NATO aircraft transverse the EU. Also, I don't think any of these aircraft still in service still have the tail guns, or at least the vast majority had them removed long ago.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
That's got to be the easiest job in the entirety of the Russian air force.
OldeFortran77@reddit
Look at the middle photo. I thought "Chair Force" was just a nickname.