The An-2 is also hard to lock on with IR system, especially low-powered IR seekers in MANPADS missiles.

During the Yugoslav wars, the Croats retrofitted some old agricultural An-2s to drop home-made bombs on the Serbian forces. The Serbs had a hard time countering these planes as they were hard to detect and destroy via radar or IR homing missiles, so they had to use the (very expensive) TV-guided SA-6 SAM missiles to take down these very old planes.

Only 1 round jam inside have to discard entire 150-round magazine.

Bizarrely, an airforce with the image of a flightless bird as its emblem.

And considering the current New Zealand Air Force, deliciously ironic.

Probably not that of a good idea to use the An-2 for mass paradrops nowadays, but for covert infiltration of special agents or small commando teams, I would still consider using these types of planes before the much more detectable helicopters or modern transport planes. The An-2's ability to land and take off from very crude landing strips or even open fields is a plus as it can also be used for exfiltration purposes.

Besides, an expert pilot with good intelligence sources can always find and exploit small gaps in the most secure of air defence systems. Natural atmospheric and geological occurences like thunderstorms or the sun's heat convection off the earth's surface can sometimes mess with the most sensitive electronic systems.

I have also heard stories during the cold war of skilled Soviet pilots turning off the engines of their An-2's mid-flight, to further avoid detection on infiltration/exfiltration missions across NATO borders and glide silently for up to 20-30 miles at treetop level with the engine off.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 20 2017, 03:08 PM

Comparing using lightweight gliders released from high altitude on controlled descent would probably be peanuts compared to gliding a heavier biplane at treetop altitude in the middle of the night.

A more fitting comparison will be the RAF flying in wood-and-fabric Lysander planes by night to drop off or extract OSS and SOE agents operating behind German lines in WW2.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 20 2017, 09:27 PM

When I look at the context of the environment, the color scheme does seem to be more suited to the African environment.

I wonder why they didn't make the Malaysian digicam greener & darker in the first place though, as befitting our environment.

U are looking forward to a Maoist-style 'People's Republic of Malaya' PRC satellite state instead izzit?

The bestest kind of math.

You're talking like a 'colonialist installed government' is a patently bad and evil thing. From a historical view, a 'colonialist installed government' isn't that of a problem, usually it's a good thing for the country if you see in the big picture..

You have to remember that Malaya has been until then, without a local ruling tradition or mechanism for nearly 400 years. All the government machinery has always been based on the colonial offices of faraway empires and never on a local basis. So there is a grave danger that when a colonial power leaves, there will be chaos on the ground due to the local people having no ruling traditions or a proper bureaucracy to effectively administer the government. History have shown that when an empire lets go of its colonies entirely, it usually leads to very bad things happening (civil wars, revenge attacks, rise of warlords, risk of becoming a failed state)

I think this was present also in Malaya, just after the Japanese surrender and withdrawal but before the British were able to return and restore control of Malaya. There were 45 days of bloody anarchy with scenes of murders and violent reprisals by the CPM and MPAJA on the local people (mainly malay) who worked for the japanese colonial government and police but also any suspected collaborators of all races. Not to mention the widespread effort to raise funds by means of robberies and confiscation of property.

What would've happened if the British never returned after WW2? No doubt the orgy of violence and killings by the CPM and MPAJA would continue unabated for a while but I'd also imagine a chaotic Malaya would be soon invaded by Indonesia, seeing that Sukarno at the time has been salivating at the thought of a unified 'Melayu Raya' encompassing the malay-speaking countries in South East Asia.

Regardless of what you think, local armed insurgent groups are tremendously durable and hard to eradicate, even if they are without foreign government support. There are always sympathizers and interested parties that support these groups financially or materially.

The Brits had to deal with the IRA and its splinter groups for nearly 100 years already. The FARC still causes major damage to Colombia. The ETA still plague Spain. Some of these groups have signed a peace treaty with their governments ending armed struggle, but their political body and central ideology remains intact (with a possibility, however small, of armed struggle will restart somewhere in the future).

Other examples are probably a bit long to list.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: May 17 2017, 11:47 AM

By that logic, the US and its allies should have eliminated the Iraqi insurgency sometime in 2004 already. But then again, the US and its allies might not have been serious at all.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: May 17 2017, 12:07 PM

What on earth are u talking about?

What does 'winning hearts and minds' have to do with the relationships between neighboring countries?

Besides in Malaya, I think efforts on fighting insurgency has been done only in the military sense. Any efforts to engage the civilian population and assure them with words and deeds that the government is a better alternative to insurgents has been half-hearted at best and non-existent at the worst.

Most care about eradicating the guerrillas as the first and only means of counterinsurgency and not improving the countryside environment to prevent any more guerrillas springing up later. With no visible alternative to insurgency, no wonder country people keep getting influenced by insurgent propaganda.

Considering the ZSU-23 uses explosive shells for its ammo, the damage may be a bit worse than that. Blow in half?

Unless they use a guided projectile of some sort,how would they properly aim a target from those sort of ranges.

A lot can happen in relation to the shell and target at those ranges.

Lets say you shoot at something moving from 5km away,a second's worth of movement of the target will mean a miss, as it takes a shell longer to reach it.

Even if they killed the majority of the Abu Sayyaf militants, what then? I don't see the government ever doing any improvements and developments to the area since the 1960s that would convince people living there that living peacefully is a better alternative to joining Abu Sayyaf. The people have no good future to look forward to and have only very basic education. These are the kinds of people who readily fall into militancy, as there is simply not much alternative to it.

If they neglect this aspect of counter-insurgency, they are simply ensuring the rise of another Abu Sayyaf 10 years in the future. These kind of people revel in places that governments have neglected.

I don't get why the Navy keep using these small boats to do offshore patrols.

Remember the CB90 that broke down on the way to Layang-Layang a few years ago?

From a mother ship nearby or all the way from shore?

Aiya why la only 1 RPG gunner have assistant....