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

[Ed in North Texas]

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

And prior to the Great War, various countries issued rifles with "volley sights" which could be adjusted to the appropriate angle so infantry rifle fire could be used for plunging fire to harass and break up infantry and cavalry formations before they could launch an attack. WW I. and the use of the machine gun, eliminated this "feature" of infantry rifles.

[Multigunner]

Anybody want to do some research and find out why the Buffington sight (Trapdoor Springfield) is mounted at the angle it is and why the elevator shifts as you rise it? Something to do with compensating for the effect of the right turn of the rifling on the impact of the bullet? At what ranges do you need to be shooting before that becomes a significant effect? Yet it was built in to the sight.

Methinks they might have been planning on using them for indirect fire?

I have only looked this up in relation to the 1903 Springfield.

Oddly the 03 has a very minute ballistic jump to the left, the bullet exiting slightly to the left of the bore line. The right hand twist creates a low pressure bubble at the left rear of the bullet body near the base which cants the bullet nose to the right, this is a bernoule effect.
Since the bullet starts out a hair to the left of the line of the bore and the strength of the bernoule effect is a function of rotation rather than velocity, it takes very nearly 600 yards before the cant to the right steers the bullet enough to cross the bore line. So at range of the battle sight ( I've seen this quoted as 535 to 575 yards, sources disagree) the point of impact is at least theorecticaly dead on the bore line.
Then as the bullet looses velocity the spindrift increases its effect, since the bullet travels slower but continues to rotate at practically the same speed as when it left the muzzle.
The line of spin drift is then a steepening curve to the right of the bore line. At one thousand yards drift is still not that great, but without the angled long range ladder sight drift would be enough to cause a miss on a man sized target.

If rotation speed is the same a lower velocity bullet will be more affected by spin drift.

PS
Since the 5.56 and 7.62X39 have very little wounding ability past six hundred yards ultra long range plunging fire would be totally ineffective.
The 7.62X51 if used with M118 ammo can be effective past 1,000 yards, but since MGs are no longer a rare commodity groups of riflemen with 7.62 NATO rifles would be a very inefficient way of providing such fire.

[missionary5155]

Hay.....you guys are missing the whole point. You know how the men in the field can call in artillery support. Artillery needs to know the location of the enemy so the guys in the field call it in. The artillery gunner sets his gun to shoot at that location to take out the enemy.

Why can't they call in rifle bullets artillery support on the enemy like they do with real artillery. When did anyone every set up a rifle to shoot on the same principle as artillery. The guy in the field calls it in and the guy with the rifle sets the gun to shoot at that exact location then shoots off a few 1000 bullets.

I know there has been many times in history where they shot bullets into the sky hoping to maybe hit the enemy but not knowing for sure the exactly location where the bullets would come down.

The reason is for the rifle to be used accurately for indirect fire purposes it would have to be equiped with a very heavy precise aiming system that would make it rather cumbersome to have to haul around. Consider how precise you must aim a rifle to consistently hit a target at 500 meters that you can see. Now imagine trying to accurately aim at a target you cannot see that is 3 miles away possibly moving, wind drift and atmospheric conditions to consider..... The average grunt is just not going to be well suited to the task.
On our M60A1 tank our gun systen had very precise gunnery instruments for plotting and then hitting unseen targets at night... probably weighed about 100 pounds. The intended target was to receive HE as it was figured that the gun lay was going to be not as precise as a visible target.
Mike in Peru

[Multigunner]

Two good examples of why massed rifle fire at targets beyond normal range is counter productive.
A Flying Tigers pilot once wrote of an incident where he strafed a Japanese truck convoy.
The Japanese troops piled out of the trucks, formed up in ranks, and under direction of an officer began firing on the attacking P-40.
They were probably using the fold down anti-aircraft sights in their Arisakas.
The P-40 pilot continued his strafing runs till all the Japanese troops were dead on the ground, still in formation.
When he landed, he counted more than 200 bullet holes in his aircraft from just behind the cockpit to the tail section.
This does demonstrate that the anti-aircraft sight on the Arisaka could allow fairly accurate massed fire on an aircraft, and a slower and less robust pre 40's fighter design might well have been brought down, but so far as I know theres no record of an aircraft brought down in this way.

Another incident also involved Japanese troops. These were survivors of a sunken transport ship who'd managed to launch a large wooden hatch cover or deck cargo pallet and get aboard in full kit.
IIRC this was during the battle of the Bismark Sea.
The Japanese troops formed up in ranks and under direction of an officer fired long range volleys at passing allied vessels.
After awhile the crew of one ship decided enough was enough, and blasted the raft into oblivion.

In both cases troops were only effective if massed and under direction of an officer, and their fire proved inadequate in eliminating the threat. Being massed together the fire from more powerful guns quickly destroyed the massed troops without their having produced any casualties.

PS
These incidents also demonstrate the absolute devotion and obediance to orders of the WW2 Japanese soldier, and apparent disregard for their own lives when faced by insurmountable odds.

[kmag]

Do a google search for the War Dept, Training Manual or TM 9-575. Published May 1942.
Check out field glasses or auxiliary fire control instruments. You will find a section that addresses using both rifles and machine guns by infantry organizations in indirect firing at long range and at invisible targets. Please don't ask me how to shoot something that is invisible. It means that someone can see the targets, but not necessarily the troops firing the weapons. Invisible is the word used in the manual.

[garym1a2]

Shoot 10,000 rnds to get one hit is not very effective when the average solder may only carry 96 rnds of 30-06 for his Grand.

[Larry Gibson]

Volley fire was very effective and practiced at by infantry companies and machinegun companies back when men were men and woman were glad of it. It was used against mass targets and for what became H&I fire to artillery and mortars.

kmag

I bet you couldn't enough Soldiers or Marines who know how to use the verticle part of the M3 binocular reticle to count on your fingers. I asked over a period of 20+ years of many enlisted and officers of both branches and never found one, got lots of off the wall answers though. It's use proobably hasn't been in print since that '42 TM. Not many in the sevice read manuals these days or even in past days anyways........I learned how to use the reticle from an old WWII machinegunner many years ago.

Larry Gibson

[waksupi]

Shoot 10,000 rnds to get one hit is not very effective when the average solder may only carry 96 rnds of 30-06 for his Grand.

10,000 rounds per casualty is low for what it has been in some wars and engagements.

[Multigunner]

10,000 rounds per casualty is low for what it has been in some wars and engagements.

True enough and in those instances where the squad automatic weapons are kaput for some reason, well directed high angle fire might save the day by disabling an enemy MG or mortar squad.
But in order to get this sort of area fire capability from modern Assault rifles you would first have to adopt a cartridge with vastly improved downrange energy and penetration. Then fit the rifles with a volley fire sight, which could double as a rifle grenade launcher or under the fore end 40mm grenade launcher sight, though this would probably require a dual range scale.

As it is its cheaper and more efficient to provide enough squad autos and trained snipers and designated marksmen to do that job if and when close air support is not available.

[kmag]

Larry, I agree with your comment. I to have asked many military men about it, but most don't know what m3 binoculars were. They were apparently used throughout WWII, but were sold as surplus in the 60's. The reason I am familiar with them is because I bought a set and they were good ones. Do not know what company manufactured them but they were clear as a bell and had good glass with no distortion near the edges. Good glasses for their day. kmag

[Larry Gibson]

kmag

Yes they were/are excellent binos. I believe they were made by B&L and Leica (SP?). Mine are Lieca's and I picked them up in the late '60s having used them extensively in the Army. I used them for years while still hunting just as I used them on patrols. They were excellent but as my eyes went south the eye relief just isn't compatable with glasses They are excellent optics for 6x30s. Mine made the trip to Iraq with me in '04 through '05, probably makes them the longest used "vets" of their class.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

I've restored a few telescopes and binoculars over the years, and a couple of scopes.
My favorite binoculars are a pair I found at an estate sale. These had obviously sent some time under water and had a lot of silt inside.
These are Dupont of Paris 8X25 compact binoculars. Optics are excellent.
These cleaned up perfectly, I replaced the patent leather covering with real split sueded pigskin. I plan to use a more authetic covering one day, perhaps taken from an old book cover.
The body of the binos is very heavy and seems to be of machined steel.
While heavy the weight provdes stability.
Years after I got these I found a Italian made leather binocular case at a Goodwill store. The case is a perfect fit. Careful cleaning and treating with neats foot oil brought the old leather case back to life.

[Rocket Man]

The reason is for the rifle to be used accurately for indirect fire purposes it would have to be equiped with a very heavy precise aiming system that would make it rather cumbersome to have to haul around. Consider how precise you must aim a rifle to consistently hit a target at 500 meters that you can see. Now imagine trying to accurately aim at a target you cannot see that is 3 miles away possibly moving, wind drift and atmospheric conditions to consider..... The average grunt is just not going to be well suited to the task.
On our M60A1 tank our gun systen had very precise gunnery instruments for plotting and then hitting unseen targets at night... probably weighed about 100 pounds. The intended target was to receive HE as it was figured that the gun lay was going to be not as precise as a visible target.
Mike in Peru

A 280 mm Howitzer is cumbersome so why does the military have those. I am not talking about taking out moving targets, airplanes, tanks, armor vehicles. NO war is won with just 1 type of weapon. I am talking about taking out people only. People that are dug in or pinned down or on the run. This would be like a shotgun blast from the sky. It would be like mobile artillary. A vehicle with about 10 mini guns that shoot 50 Cal BMG 900 grain bullets covering an area the size of a foot ball field up to 5 miles away. You put a bullet every few inches in a 100 yard diameter circle in a few seconds and it is called in just like an artillery strike. You don't kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer.

[Ed in North Texas]

A 280 mm Howitzer is cumbersome so why does the military have those. snip .

Actually, the US military doesn't have any 280mm cannons, or at least working ones. The last of the 280mm M-65 cannons was taken out of service in 1963. A total of 20 M-65s were made, and 8 are known to survive as exhibits, the most famous being "Atomic Annie", on Cannon Walk at the Artillery Museum, Ft. Sill, OK. I served with an ex-M-65 crewman in early 1966.

There were several reasons why the US Army decided to dump the M-65. It WAS cumbersome, it could not be hidden, atomic munitions were developed for the 155mm and 8" howitzers, and greater range and carrying capacity rocket and guided missile atomic capable weapons had been developed.

Oh yeah, and in the artillery there's nothing wrong with killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer. Preferably not one of those puny 12 pounders when a 16 pound sledge is available.

[JSnover]

The AC-130 answers the OP question.

[2wheelDuke]

I remember reading this when I was researching the 45-70 on Wikipedia.

After the Sandy Hook tests of 1879, a new variation of the .45-70 cartridge was produced, the .45-70-500, which fired a heavier 500 grain (32.5 g) bullet. The heavier 500-grain (32 g) bullet produced significantly superior ballistics, and could reach ranges of 3,350 yards (3,120 m), which were beyond the maximum range of the .45-70-405. While the effective range of the .45-70 on individual targets was limited to about 1,000 yards (915 m) with either load, the heavier bullet would produce lethal injuries at 3,500 yards (3,200 m). At those ranges, the bullets struck point-first at roughly a 30 degree angle, penetrating 3 one inch (2.5 cm) thick oak boards, and then traveling to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) into the sand of the Sandy Hook beach*. It was hoped the longer range of the .45-70-500 would allow effective volleyed fire at ranges beyond those normally expected of infantry fire.[5]

[gew98]

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.

Have you read much of the great war ?. The Canadians and the french pioneered long range MG indirect interdiction fire on targets out of line of sight. The germans were very slow to react to such and of course the US was slower yet.

[gew98]

A 280 mm Howitzer is cumbersome so why does the military have those. I am not talking about taking out moving targets, airplanes, tanks, armor vehicles. NO war is won with just 1 type of weapon. I am talking about taking out people only. People that are dug in or pinned down or on the run. This would be like a shotgun blast from the sky. It would be like mobile artillary. A vehicle with about 10 mini guns that shoot 50 Cal BMG 900 grain bullets covering an area the size of a foot ball field up to 5 miles away. You put a bullet every few inches in a 100 yard diameter circle in a few seconds and it is called in just like an artillery strike. You don't kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer.

High Explosive for indirect fire is considerably more effective than MG bullets falling to earth. That is why Artillery is the King of battle and Infantry the Queen. Think about it... a fusilade of MG bullets peppering an area which a foxhole or light cover would provide protection from ...or HE 105 or greater diameter rounds would turn to pulp as well as killing/maiming with blast effect let alone shrapnel. Artillery is considerably more demoralizing/incapacitating when rained upon troops than MG fire direct or indirect.

[gew98]

Two good examples of why massed rifle fire at targets beyond normal range is counter productive.
A Flying Tigers pilot once wrote of an incident where he strafed a Japanese truck convoy.
The Japanese troops piled out of the trucks, formed up in ranks, and under direction of an officer began firing on the attacking P-40.
They were probably using the fold down anti-aircraft sights in their Arisakas.
The P-40 pilot continued his strafing runs till all the Japanese troops were dead on the ground, still in formation.
When he landed, he counted more than 200 bullet holes in his aircraft from just behind the cockpit to the tail section.
This does demonstrate that the anti-aircraft sight on the Arisaka could allow fairly accurate massed fire on an aircraft, and a slower and less robust pre 40's fighter design might well have been brought down, but so far as I know theres no record of an aircraft brought down in this way.

.

Uh multi .. the type 99 rifle did not exist in any quantity during the time the the flying tigers were pummeling the japs in china. The type 38 rifles in 6,5mm were then the vast majority of rifles in hands of troops in china at that time if not completely. The germans and russians both used massed infantry fire to negligible effect on ground attack aircraft , and of course they had heavier and 'harder' bullets than the japanese by far.

[Multigunner]

Uh multi .. the type 99 rifle did not exist in any quantity during the time the the flying tigers were pummeling the japs in china.

Once the U S entered the war remaining Flying tiger pilots continued to give the Japs a good working over. Its been a long time since I read this biography, so whether this pilot was still flying for China as a Flying Tiger, or had transfered to U S command I don't remember.
Other Flying Tigers, such as Pappy Boyington went on to flying other aircraft for the U S N or U S M C the Pacific.

The Type 99 was adopted in 1939 so it was in production for more than two years before the Flying Tigers were disbanded in 1942.It may be more likely that the Type 38 was used, but the Type 99 may have been available.

I don't remember the name of the pilot in that incident, but took a quick look through Robert L Scott's book "God is my Co-pilot" and found he'd been fired on in the same manner, and a fellow pilot told him he had also been fired on by massed Japanese troops in the same way, so it wasn't an isolated practice.
From "God is my Co-Pilot" chapter "Rats on the road to Burma".

After following the Salween to the South until I could see
Lashio, I turned West for the field and came in right on the tree-
tops, strafing the anti-aircraft guns in two passes. On the second
run across the field I felt and heard bullets hitting my ship, but
didn't see their origin until nearly too late. Down close to the
West end of the field, almost under the trees 3 were Japanese
ground soldiers. They were grouped into two squares like the old
Macedonian phalanx, and were firing rifles at me. I turned my
guns on them and could see the fifty-calibre fire taking good toll
from the Jap ranks. But even after I had made three runs on
them, I noted that they continued to hold their positions, an
excellent demonstration of perfect battle discipline. Later on one
of the AVG aces, Tex Hill, told me that he had seen the same
thing down in Thailand, and that after he'd strafed one of the
squares of about a hundred men and there were only two or three
on their feet, those few still were shooting at him when he left
the field.

PS
The book is available as a free download at the Internet Archive.
http://www.archive.org/stream/godism...47mbp_djvu.txt