Why hasn't the military used a Rifle like Artillery?

[Rocket Man]

I read online maximum down range distance for an artillery shot is to shoot it at a 60 deg angle. I know artillery uses different angles to put the shot where they want it. World record sniper kill is about 1.5 miles. Why can't a machine gun be used like artillery put 1000 bullet in the air and take out 1 or several enemy 5 miles away.

One time in Vietnam we set of a 50 cal bmg machine gun on the other side of a valley. We took several shots at the trail over a mile away on the other side to zero it in and lock it in place. We waited 3 days for a group of about 20 vc to come walking along with a load of supplies. We pulled the trigger and just held it for several seconds. Those guys walked right into the bullets.

I did some experementing with exploding 12 ga shotgun slugs shot them at different angles I can hear them explode way off in the distance. It seems to me a machine gun could be used as artillery to take out the enemy over 5 miles away.

I shot my 300 Win Mag from the top of a mountain at a high angle but never could see the bullets hit in the desert. The box says they have a range of 5 miles.

If you shoot 1000 bullets into the air all at the same angle it seems to me they would all come down in a certain diameter circle like a shotgun blast. Wonder what the diameter would be. Has anyone every heard of the military experementing with this?

I think heaver bullets would probably have less wind drift. Light weight bullets would probably scatter over a larger diameter circle.

[randyrat]

Other countries did it. The beaches at Normandy, the well hidden Germans fired machine guns over a big embankments onto the beach..They were predetermined angles and they let the MG34s and others rip just as we landed.

Now we have to be concerned about civilians and unintended casualties. The enemy has adapted and conceals himself among civilians in Urban warfare only to point out to the media how many civilians we have killed.

We are getting better at precision long range shot placements with snipers, longer and longer shots have totally scared the dikins out of our enemies. It helps to change the game in our favor.

[tinyejp]

I am by no means a ballistics expert, so all that follows is merely speculation.

I imagine it is largely a function of mass. Small arms projectiles are just that....small. Their low weight allows fine, flat(ish) shooting up to a given range. However, after a certain distance, gravity, wind resistance, and all the other interesting stuff that effects their flight will cause them to slow down. At some point, they will lose their speed as they simply haven't got enough mass to counter-effect all the things working against their flight.

A large projectile, such as that from an artillery cannon, has LOTS of mass, and holds it's lethality against all these effects over much greater distance.

By the time a .223 projectile reached a target a mile or so away, it may be more akin to a pebble tossed from a few feet than a bullet from a rifle.

Again, just rambling speculation...but I foresee an interesting conversation afoot! I'm sure someone a little more familiar with such matters will chime in soon.

[waksupi]

They started using indirect machine gun fire in World War One.

[MtGun44]

We had to change the ammo in our machineguns in .30-06 cal in WW1 from 150 gr flat base
to 173 gr boat tailed because there were long range machinegun duel from one set of
trenches to another. IIRC the 150 FB would only go about 4000-5000 yds and the 173 BT
would go more like 7500 yds. The Germans were using a 196 BT and it went way, way
farther than ours. We were unable to rake their trenches, but they could rake ours.

Not much done anymore, not much fixed trenchlines like that.

Bill

[kmag]

Had a pair of surplus military binoculars years ago that had one vertical and one horizontal line in the lens and iirc the lines were in increments numbered 1 to 4. The model designation on the binoculars was m-4 or m-44, memory fails me on the number. They were good and clear about 8 power and were stolen form me while on vacation. I think it was about 15 years ago that I saw an article about them in a gun rag. The lines in the lens were used to range for shots beyond the adjustment of the standard sights. they were used by squad leaders to estimate for hold over for for group fire into enemy concentrations at long ranges. The squad leader might have the men put the sight on 100 yds. and then aim at a building or object high on a hill beyond the enemy to drop group fire on their position. The numbers were calibrated for the A3 and M1 30-06 round. Tried to find another pair of those binoculars, but have been unsuccessful to date.

[Bent Ramrod]

If I recall, the Turks used .44 caliber Winchesters in this matter on entrenched Russians in the battle of Plevna in the 1870's.

A modern small bore high velocity bullet would probably go too high, making it more susceptible to wind drift before it came back down. Any range increase by the velocity would be negated by the loss in accuracy. But a heavy, slow, large caliber boolit would have a more reliable, if shorter, trajectory.

[JSnover]

Didn't Carlos Hathcock do something like this with an M2?

[303Guy]

The idea of 60 degree firing angle is to drop the shells (which are explosive) down onto targets. Maximum range is achieved with closer to 30 degrees elevation (or is it 40?) The 303 Brit used to have a one mile target shooting following. It took into account weather conditions in a big way. I've no idea the size of target aimed at. But the principle of machine gun fire of that nature was used by the Brits in earlier times (at least in training). I wonder how effective it really was?

[waksupi]

From accounts I have read from WW1, it was quite effective, if only from a moral standpoint. The soldiers on both sides had a real good idea of resupply points, cross roads, and rally points that they would target. Once they suspected, or had intelligence from balloon or other aircraft, they would turn loose. It was used quite a bit when they expected a "show".

[nicholst55]

It was common to group machine guns together into MG Companies and even Battalions in the Great War. They routinely fired company and battalion barrages of indirect fire at the other side, just like their counterparts in the artillery did.

[Rio Grande]

"Volley Fire" or the mass launching of projectiles fired at a high angle, was first used by archers thousands of years ago.
It was used by armies with smoothbore muskets and later, to greater effect, with rifled muskets firing 'minie balls'.
It was used against native forces in colonial wars.
It was used in both world wars with rifles and machine guns.

Come to think of it, it was used in my old urban neighborhood on New Years, and my kids often brought home spent bullets picked up off the street. They went in the lead pot, of course.
"Waste not, want not."

[Dobetown]

Get a copy of Herbert McBrides "Emma Gees".

[NickSS]

In Hatchers note book he describes all sorts of tests the army made to see how far rifle bullets really would go and they found out that the 150 gr flat based bullet would not reach 3000 yards even with a tail wind. Duiring WWI he also describes the development of the 173 gr BT bullet which almost doubled the distance that they could fire a MG for barrage fire which was quite normal during that war. The adopted the bullet as the M1 load. After WWI the army used up all their original 30-06 150 gr bullets and started issuing the M1 ball ammo to National Guard units for rifle practice. They quickly got complaints because most guard ranges did not have enough safety zone for the longer range bullets. So they started loading M2 Ball ammo with 150 gr flat base bullets to solve the problem. Come WWII and the need for barrage fire was not needed so they stuck to the 150 gr bullet except that by the end of the war almost everyone was shooting AP ammo which weighed more and shot a little further than M2 ball.

[El Gato]

If I recall, the Turks used .44 caliber Winchesters in this matter on entrenched Russians in the battle of Plevna in the 1870's.

A modern small bore high velocity bullet would probably go too high, making it more susceptible to wind drift before it came back down. Any range increase by the velocity would be negated by the loss in accuracy. But a heavy, slow, large caliber boolit would have a more reliable, if shorter, trajectory.

Here is a good article on the Battle of Plevna:

http://www.militaryrifles.com/turkey...evnaDelay.html

The Turks were smart enough to use ranging stakes, Peabody Martinis and Winchester 66's at the appropriate times to inflict massive casualties.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
303guy has it.. The idea is for rounds to drop into positions like a foxhole.. not go glancing off the hardpack around a hole. Tanks have very thin armor on top. A round dropping on top of a tank is very likely to cause damage. Hit a tank on the front mantle with a 105 HE and you just made a crew very angry. Drop that same round on the tank roof and the crew is out of the fight.
Mike in Peru

[Love Life]

You are thinking plunging fire.

[9.3X62AL]

Maximum range with the 168 grain Sierra Matchkings we used in our 308 bolt rifles at work was calced at 29* 30' or so. That's from recollection, so don't flame me too heatedly.

Plunging bullets can still do a lot of damage to property and people. I've taken a number of reports on New Year's Day of holes in roofs, patio covers, and awnings caused by falling bullets. The involved projectile is usually found on the floor or ground below the hole. Idjits firing in the air need their heads examined.

[Love Life]

Plunging fire is used when engagin enemies on hill tops or in defilade. The gun is aimed so that the trajectory drops the bullets onto the enemy position. Takes a lot of skill, but is very effective.

While it can be done with a rifle, it is much better with a machinegun due to the rate of fire, and the machinegun can be locked in on it's bypod.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Lee-Enfield #3 volley fire sights on left side of reciever for ranges out to 2000 meters(!).Robert