THE 20 mm L-39 ANTI-TANK RIFLE

[The_Enigma]

After the Winter War

Later on, the L-39 received improvements e.g. night sights, AA-sights and a targeting scope.

source http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/FinAT/FINantitank2.htm

Just wondering what exactly would night sights be? ... night vision?

thanks for any help provided

[flamingknives]

More likely sights that could be used at night, like tritium paint on the sight components, larger apertures etc.

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

Sounds right to me. There's a reason the U.S. Navy

uses/used (haven't checked lately) 7x50 binos. Large aperture for light gathering at night, special coatings, and enough magnification to be useful yet usable on a rolling, pitching ship. Another possibility might be electrically lighted reticles, but I don't know whether the technology was fielded that early.

the_enigma,

The Lahti was once fairly popular in this country among those who liked big toys, and it starred in the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot."

Regards,

John Kettler

[jBrereton]

Would they not be dangerously radioative due to the tritium? A couple of years on one of those and you'd get eye cancer, no?

[flamingknives]

Not really. You'd suffer more radiation living in Cornwall (region of England) than having Tritium sights. Tritium is still used in rifle, LAW and support weapon sights.

It was very commonly used on watch faces at the time and there is no significant number of wrist cancer.

It's not liike you have your eye that close to the sights or to the sights for any great length of time.

Nuclear radiation really isn't that dangerous.

[stoat]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Nuclear radiation really isn't that dangerous.

Sure. There used to be a watch factory around here, and one job that women had there was to paint the hands of the watch with tritium paint so they could be used in the dark. 30 some years later, most of the women had some form of cancer in their skin or bones.

But in the case of tritium on gun sights, there is so little of it, and you are exposed to it for such a short amount of time that it really doesn't matter. I'd be more worried about radon in your basement.

[flamingknives]

Have your hands covered in it for decades and it's dangerous, but there's a misconception that any radioactive source is really dangeous.

In small quantities and with intermittant exposure it isn't even remotely dangerous.

[stoat]

You're right, I was just saying that even though it's not dangerous in this case, it sure can be.

[The_Enigma]

More likely sights that could be used at night, like tritium paint on the sight components, larger apertures etc.

so, from reading of other peoples comments in this topic, the sights would have glowed?

[flamingknives]

Yes. Not very bright, but bright enough to see in the dark when looking down the sight. The closest equivalence is the modern photo-luminescent materials often seen on analogue watches and childrens toys. The notable difference is that the Tritium paint would continue to glow long after any light had been removed.

Modern optical sights use vials of tritium as a light source that it put into the sight picture by prisms

[stoat]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> More likely sights that could be used at night, like tritium paint on the sight components, larger apertures etc.

so, from reading of other peoples comments in this topic, the sights would have glowed? </font>

[The_Enigma]

thanks guys

[nienie]

If I were a soldier using that particular weapon, I would not worry much about the tritium paint on my sight, and a lot more about the tanks I'm aiming at.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The Lahti was once fairly popular in this country among those who liked big toys, and it starred in the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot."

Regards,

John Kettler

Are you sure about that John? I was pretty sure it was a 40mm Bofors gun and definitely something that packed a bigger punch than an ATR plus was able to fire on automatic.

Regards

Jim R.

[Sergei]

I remember those tritium dot 'night sights' in our RK62 assault rifles...

The problem is that even if you see the dots, it is very difficult to align them in dark and even then it doesn't help a squat unless your enemy has painted himself with tritium.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by stoat:

It is not extremely bright, but it does allow you to see which way the barrel is pointing.

Yeah 'cos otherwise you might accidentally shoot yourself in the shoulder!! :cool:

When I was a soldier many decades ago we had this stuff only on the foresight - just a little dot - the backsight was to be folded out of the way - in the case of a 2 aperture backsight like the FAL & M16's had (IIRC) it was just folded "half way" - so it was as much out of the way as possible.

[John Kettler]

KR,

That's what my memory tells me, but my Google fu has so far not yielded proof. the_enigma's link shows excellent views of the weapon; now we need a shot of the weapon used in the movie.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

KR,

Here's a link to the poster. Whatever this thing is based on, it's been Hollywoodized.

http://www.movieposter.com/poster/MPW-11116/Thunderbolt_And_Lightfoot.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[l.cassidy]

If memory doesn't fail me, I think it was a 20mm gun. Apart from the Italian title ("Una calibro 20 per lo specialista" -- "A 20mm caliber for the specialist"), I do remember that Eastwood & friends retrieve the weapon from a depot, disassembled and stored in wooden crates and they haul it and re-assemble it inside the bank to unhinge the safe's door. Not very likely that a 40mm Bofors could be handled that way...

Great movie, BTW! :cool:

Cheers,

Cassidy

[John Kettler]

l.cassidy,

Well, 20mm is what the Lahti fires, and as I recall, the movie gun uses a top loading magazine, also right for the Lahti. The barrel on the movie gun is pure Hollywood and was no doubt intended to make the gun look big and powerful. Personally, I think the vanilla Lahti looks plenty impressive, and the prop shop only wishes it had a muzzle brake like the real one. Concur that a 40mm Bofors would be way too big and heavy, never mind the crate labels.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Just noticed something else at the main Lahti link.

There was a full auto conversion developed to defeat Il-2s after the primary weapon became ineffective against tanks. Designation was L-39/44. Maybe that was what was used as the basis for the movie gun.

Regards,

John Kettler

[l.cassidy]

John,

I'm not sure if it was a Lahti AT rifle in that movie. IIRC Eastwood used to fire the gun from a seated position and the gun had a kind of...er..."shoulder harness", like the one you see in AA gun mounts like this one:

I always thought it was some kind of 20mm AA gun like a M2 Hispano or a Oerlikon (even though probably "Hollywood-ized" to some extent).

However, I'm relying on memory on this so I could stand corrected.

All the best,

Cassidy

[Sergei]

Here's a nice photo of the aa-version.

Picture 1

Picture 2

The AA version put into AT configuration

From here - it's a terrific site for all Finnish weaponry of WW2.

[John Kettler]

l.cassidy,

Considering that the barrel has obviously been altered from whatever it was, would it be any surprise at all to find that other "cool" things like, say, 20mm Oerlikon shoulder braces have also been fitted? I certainly wouldn't consider their presence to be dispositive that the T&B weapon's an Oerlikon, especially since the ammo feed's in the wrong place and of the wrong type based on my memory of the film and what imagery I've found of the gun in it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[l.cassidy]

John,

your reasoning holds the water well: if they already altered the barrel, nothing could stop them from adding other bells & whistles to the gun. However I have the "feeling" that it was a gun bulkier than a one-man portable AT rifle.

This thing is intriguing, and after some quick googling I came up with this link: http://www.mgm.com/title_title.do?title_star=THUNDERL

You can watch a trailer of the movie and there are a couple of short sequences in which the gun appears. After some still-frames, my "gut feeling" has increased by a notch...though I'd like to know your opinion about it.

Cheers,

Cassidy