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/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.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

[KCSO]

Where you been, This was high angle fire in the FIRST World War. Ian Hogg goes into great detail about setting the machine guns to cover certian areas. This is why 30-06 long range ammo was developed, to give better range to MACHINE guns. As a matter of fact this was one of Hiram Maxim's selling points in 1900 to the British and they tested this agains a wagon caravan at 2500 yards with, PLUNGING FIRE.

[Multigunner]

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

I recently read that the only British heavy tank protected by Chobham composite armor to be destroyed in battle was in a friendly fire incident when a high explosive shell landed on the commanders hatch. Even then it was spalling of the inside surface of the hatch that killed the crew.

While ultra long range volley fire could occasionally cause a casualty , I've read of incidents where troops that had become used to it would go about their business while holding a rations crate or piece of duck board over their heads, the bullets no longer having the energy to penetrate even the lightest cover or helmets.
At worst wounds would be shallow and could kill by infection, no effective anti-biotics being available at the time.
At extreme rage flat base bullets often overturned and settled into a base down or side on attitude, gretly reducing penetration and slowing down the bullets.
The term "Strafing" appears to predate the use of aircraft guns, and the term was commly used for high angle long range MG fire.

A visitor of my neighbor told me he had narrowly avoided courtmartial when he defied a standing order not to continue firing at German bombers that escaped after a raid by flying over an arab town.
After the raid an arab policeman brought a cart to the camp with the corpse of a child who had been looking up at the bombers when a .50 bullet fell and lodged in his eye socket. The wound might not have been fatal to an adult. The father of the child was given a blood debt pay off by the CO, which the machine gunner had to pay back over the course of several months.

[Love Life]

Where you been, This was high angle fire in the FIRST World War. Ian Hogg goes into great detail about setting the machine guns to cover certian areas. This is why 30-06 long range ammo was developed, to give better range to MACHINE guns. As a matter of fact this was one of Hiram Maxim's selling points in 1900 to the British and they tested this agains a wagon caravan at 2500 yards with, PLUNGING FIRE.

Huh??

[405]

I think the concept and practice has been around for a long time. It is one of the reasons the longbow was so effective in battle. Also, during seiges, both longbow and slingshot archers would cast heavy AP tipped arrows and lead sling projectiles at high angles into fortresses. The US Mil. did such testing in 1879 to improve the range and the penetration at long range of the 45-70 and that led to the 500 gr Govt round. Write up here-- http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook.htm

For infantry on foot carrying their own ammo supply, it can become a logistics issue since high volume, high angle volley fire consumes lots of ammo.

[Rocket Man]

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

I learned something very interesting about German Tiger Tanks on the Military TV channel. I love to watch the old WWII videos. They learned later in the war that a German Tiger Tank could be taken out with a glass bottle full of gasoline. Throw it on the engine air intake vents that would do the job every time. Flame thrower worked great too. Its a bit funny that a machine that could hold up to enemy tank bullets could not hold up to burning gas.

[Rocket Man]

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.

[Hang Fire]

Plunging fire has been used for a long time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/fig6-1.gif

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/Ch6.htm

[Maine1]

It has been used with rifles, bows, ect. Since the beginning of projectile weapons. I read of it being taught to Army troops using the trapdoor Springfield rifle for area denial.

As weapons advanced, i think it was deemed obsolete. Why lob bullets when an m-79 or M203 is available, or you can call arty?

[El Gato]

It has been used with rifles, bows, ect. Since the beginning of projectile weapons. I read of it being taught to Army troops using the trapdoor Springfield rifle for area denial.

As weapons advanced, i think it was deemed obsolete. Why lob bullets when an m-79 or M203 is available, or you can call arty?

Because it sometimes takes FOREVER nowadays to get 105mm, 155mm or airstrikes cleared. Long Range fire still has a purpose but the Army no longer teaches it for the most part. We always stuck to 81mm and 120mm mortars for troops in contact missions since it only took a the Battalion Operations officer or Battalion Commander to authorize the clearance of fires. This was back in 06-07 in Iraq in my case.

[Love Life]

The M-79 and M203 fire a 40mm grenade. They have no where near the range of a rifle projectile so youre area denial is limited to 450 yards and in, where a rifle can cover that same area with direct fire. Now the MK19 grenade launcher is a whole different story. With the firing tables you can do amazing things.

[JSnover]

Ok.... wouldn't it be harder to adjust your fire? When an artillery round impacts, you know where it landed and can call in the corrections. With a rifle bullet - standard ball - you won't always be able to see the strike.... Right?

[El Gato]

A friend of mine walked in 7.62 NATO fire from his M-14 by accidentally hitting a cow during a firefight near Yusufiyah Iraq. He guesstimated and eventually killed the guy by holding off slightly more. He hit a guy using a slick M-14 with irons at 600 meters! It can be done, he was exceptionally good with just about any rifle.

[Love Life]

Ok.... wouldn't it be harder to adjust your fire? When an artillery round impacts, you know where it landed and can call in the corrections. With a rifle bullet - standard ball - you won't always be able to see the strike.... Right?

You have to consider that when plunging fire is used it is with a machine gun. There will be many impacts and should be easier to spot depending on the terrain the bullets are landing in. Plunging fire is mainly used from the defense and static positions so you are shooting known range, and can lock in your T&E. Plunging fire is not something that is "on call". Most of the time I have seen plunging fire used was shooting up hill to cover hill tops. An experienced MachineGunner can work magic.

[Love Life]

A friend of mine walked in 7.62 NATO fire from his M-14 by accidentally hitting a cow during a firefight near Yusufiyah Iraq. He guesstimated and eventually killed the guy by holding off slightly more. He hit a guy using a slick M-14 with irons at 600 meters! It can be done, he was exceptionally good with just about any rifle.

That isn't really plunging fire, thats direct fire with a little kentucky windage. Plunging fire is using the downward trajectoy of the bullet after it reaches max ord to fall onto the enemy or into open top positions like behind sandbags or in a fighting hole or on a hilltop or in a depression. Think defilade.
Plunging fire can also be used to bring fire down onto the opposite side of a hill, but if you have mortars n call than I would much rather call them!! Unless of course they are too busy playing spades.

[El Gato]

Never had to use plunging fire in my short time in the Infantry. In this case my friend used Kentucky elevation, the rifle was zeroed to 300m. 60-81-120mm were our friends.

[Love Life]

We finally got 120mm's, but they went to arty and are now as usless as arty and air is nowadays.


*****************DISCLAIMER***************
I am not saying that field artillary or Air are useless in and of themselves. I am saying they are useless because our lawmakers have tied our hands behind our backs and kicked us in a sensitive area with stupid ROEs
*****************DISCLAIMER***************

[El Gato]

We finally got 120mm's, but they went to arty and are now as usless as arty and air is nowadays.


*****************DISCLAIMER***************
I am not saying that field artillary or Air are useless in and of themselves. I am saying they are useless because our lawmakers have tied our hands behind our backs and kicked us in a sensitive area with stupid ROEs
*****************DISCLAIMER***************

Very well put!...when did they change the MTOE? I was in a Light Infantry unit, we had two 120mm tubes per BN Mortar platoon if I remembered correctly. We could never get the USAF to do anything in Iraq when I was there...the Navy and the RAF were much more useful. But then again....it has been almost five years since I was overseas.

[Love Life]

We could never get the USAF to do anything in Iraq when I was there...the Navy and the RAF were much more useful

That is too funny. We use to say the same thing about the Airforce and the Navy doing nothing for us, but the Army was always willing to roll out tanks or strikers to support us if we got into a bad spot. God forbid a Marine Corps tank get dirty rolling through the desert!!

Back in Iraq in 2005 and then again from 2006-2007 it was very hard to get authorization to drop mortars, arty, or get air. Although we were in densley populated cities relatively speaking, and that played a major part. No worries though. We just used AT-4 rockets, LAWS, and my favorite, the SMAW firing thermobaric rockets. Those things would fold a small mud hut, and turn anybody inside the color of purple. Got to love death by overpressure.

Back on topic. To answer the OP's question it is because it is very inefficient with an infantry rifle and unit.

[Wayne Smith]

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?

[jonk]

Obviously you've never looked at the range on the sights of a turn of the century through mid 1940s rifle or machine gun. Most of them are graduated out to about 2000 yards to do precisely this.

[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. :p

[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/godismycopilot011247mbp/godismycopilot011247mbp_djvu.txt

[waksupi]

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".


PS
The book is available as a free download at the Internet Archive.
http://www.archive.org/stream/godismycopilot011247mbp/godismycopilot011247mbp_djvu.txt

I LOVE that site!

[gew98]

Again multi you miss the relevant reality. The type 99 adopted as it was in mid 1939 was until 1943 rarely encountered...why you ask ?. Japanese industry organized for small arms production was not able to produce the type99 rifle ( let alone other weapons ) in any quantity to meet demand and as well it was a rifle initially issued to elite units. You assume to much. I suggest you read "Shot's fired in anger" by JB George for starters as well as " No surrender". You will find that the timeframe of issue and quantity does not match your assumption. Reality has a way of doing that.

[Multigunner]

Again multi you miss the relevant reality. The type 99 adopted as it was in mid 1939 was until 1943 rarely encountered...why you ask ?. Japanese industry organized for small arms production was not able to produce the type99 rifle ( let alone other weapons ) in any quantity to meet demand and as well it was a rifle initially issued to elite units. You assume to much. I suggest you read "Shot's fired in anger" by JB George for starters as well as " No surrender". You will find that the timeframe of issue and quantity does not match your assumption. Reality has a way of doing that.

Well its interesting to hear that the Japanese wartime industries and aresenals could not produce the Type 99 in quantity for some reason.
The US Army manual on the organization and weaponry of the Japanese Army
http://www.archive.org/details/SoldiersGuideToTheJapaneseArmy-1944
does say that by the time the manual was written (it being published in 1944)the type 99 was replacing the Type 38 as the basic Japanese rifle in some combat areas, though China is not specifically mentioned and not excluded.
Regardless the account of the straffing run I mentioned earlier may have been later than 1944 for that matter, Since Flying Tiger pilots continued to fly long after the Flying Tigers were disbanded, and nothing was said that would indicate whether the troops being straffed were regular infantry or specialized units.
Could have been a regimental band or Kempetai armed with confiscated Chinese Mausers for all I know.
If the Type 38 without a anti-aircraft sight could score some hits on aircraft, then the Type 99 may have had even better luck.
Since the Type 99 was designed to superceed the Type 38 because of shortcomings revealed in China, perhaps the AA sight was a response to failure to bring down modern fighters that were making straffing runs.
The multiple recorded incidents suggest this was a common tactic for Japanese troops under attack by aircraft.

PS
On page 42 the book states that on the island of Kiska invaded in 1942 entire Japanese units were armed with the Type 99 rifle.

Found another source that says the Japanese troops in Manchuria were the first to switch to the Type 99, followed by troops back in Japan, then troops in the Pacific. Japanese troops in the Solomon islands had the Type 99 by 1942 so at least some Japanese troops in China would have had the rifle much earlier.

[MtGun44]

The Type 99 had sight wings calibrated to give "appropriate" lead against strafing aircraft.
Given that they actually had a clue how much to lead the aircraft rather than an individual
WAG, it seems quite likely that they would have had a much higher chance of hitting.

Did not know about the "fighting squares" - shades of the medival pikemen!

Bill

[Multigunner]

The Type 99 had sight wings calibrated to give "appropriate" lead against strafing aircraft.
Given that they actually had a clue how much to lead the aircraft rather than an individual
WAG, it seems quite likely that they would have had a much higher chance of hitting.

Did not know about the "fight squares" - shades of the medival pikemen!

Bill

From the descriptions of those incidents it would appear these troops were the most highly indoctrinated and fearless troops, actually far more scared of their officers than of any enemy.

I'm a bit more convinced these were Type 99 rifles being used after checking out the timeline of replacement of the Type 38 in China, and the way these troops acted.
Obviously massed rifle fire against U S fighters was counter productive, and the AA sight was dropped from later production rifles. Though it might be because the sights were more expensive and the level of training and skill to make use of them was no longer available later in the war.

[gew98]

As is so often... the germans tried this AA sight thingy in the great war. It did not fare very well with the then smoking hot fast 95/100 MPH fabric coered planes of the day.
The japanese were just as often as well day late dollar short on such things. Infantry from the great war thoughout WW2 used massed small arms fire on low level aitcraft...without special sights.Why the japanese picked up on something even the germans discarded one can only guess at.

[Multigunner]

As is so often... the germans tried this AA sight thingy in the great war. It did not fare very well with the then smoking hot fast 95/100 MPH fabric coered planes of the day.
The japanese were just as often as well day late dollar short on such things. Infantry from the great war thoughout WW2 used massed small arms fire on low level aitcraft...without special sights.Why the japanese picked up on something even the germans discarded one can only guess at.

Over confidence and pride in the dicipline of their troops I suppose.
They seem to have used this tactic while formed up in ranks in the open as exposed as on a parade ground.
The Germans would have been firing from trenches and in irregular lines which would have reduced hit probability and made co-ordinating fire difficult.

The majority of aircaft the Japanese had faced earlier on in China were not much better than the best WW1 aircraft. Plenty of 30's biplanes , early wire braced monoplane fighters, and even older junk palmed off on the Chinese by surplus dealers. Some 30's Japanese fighters were not much faster.
A P-40 or Gruman fighter could withstand dozens of hits to the airframe from rifle caliber weaponry, but the damage sustained in such incidents would send most lesser aircraft into the ground quickly enough.

[junkbug]

The Type 99 AA sights are far more robust, and easier to employ, that that "Rube-Goldberg" contraption on the GEW 98.

That is not to say they were any more effective.

[trench]

It would not take a very deep trench or foxhole to protect you from this sort of firing. By the time you had fired 1-2 second's worth, everyone at any sort of fixed position willl have dived into some sort of sandbag cover, or at least a hole of some sort. It's mostly a big waste of ammo, especially if done without a forward observer with a radio to guide the firing.

[waksupi]

It would not take a very deep trench or foxhole to protect you from this sort of firing. By the time you had fired 1-2 second's worth, everyone at any sort of fixed position willl have dived into some sort of sandbag cover, or at least a hole of some sort. It's mostly a big waste of ammo, especially if done without a forward observer with a radio to guide the firing.

In a fire fight, people at longer range would have no idea they were coming under fire. The high trajectory of the shots would, and did, easily drop into a trench. Good enough to shoot my grandad with three rounds, any way.

[grumman581]

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

Have you calculated what the holdover would be for those .45-70s at that range? It's quite impressive...

Here's a link for more info for anyone interested:

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook.htm

Hit "bulls-eye" at 2500 yds with .45-70...

Springfield "long range" rifle .45-80-500 -- 10°38'21" angle of elevation

That's something like a 1409 ft holdover, isn't it?

[Larry Gibson]

Not a "waste of ammo" at all if you have "fixed the enemy" in that position with such fire while another element is maneuvering on them (anyone remember fire and maneuver? Or is"the stack" all we really know todya?) Such effective long range fire can also prevent the enemy from maneuvering, to their advantage, on you. Additionally such fire (even with the "flat" shooting 5.56 and 7.62 out of SAWs and M240s) past 600 yards is considered "plunging" fire and can be effective against entrenched troops or those behind imediate cover as mentioned. It also is effective on mildly sloping "reverse" slopes.

I guess too many people think the effective use of a machinegun is firing from the hip at commo equipment across a room while screaming (Rambo).........you're hard pressed to find an current Marine or Soldier who knows how to properly "lay a machinegun" even though it is/was a basic infantry skill let alone use the machinegun effectively at long range. For crying out loud it is almost impossible to get an M2 gunners to use the sights because all they are taught is to put the handles agains their chest and adjust off tracers. That my friends is a real waste of ammo! It is indeed unfortunate and a sad comentary on the infantry officer and NCO corp of both services that effective long range machine gun fire and rifle fire is a lost art with probaly no institutional knowledge in either service anymore. The effective use of such would be far better in Afghanistan than issuing out M14s to mostly untrained SDMs for "effective" long range fire support.

Larry Gibson

[scb]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8w0p7ry9U52LFNRfMqWcu3-fnQvo2Hw0dmc_4G1Q6qFMs36SE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fj97-UckI

Today's indirect fire. Far more effective than sticking your muzzle in the air and yanking the trigger.

[Larry Gibson]

scb

On todays "asymetrical" battlefield the use of such is severely limited do to extensive property damage and probably collateral casualties. It also may just not be available. The ability to put accurate small arms area fire on a target would be preferable but alas it's use is no longer known so it's a moot point..........

Larry Gibson

[Four Fingers of Death]

Those Ay Rabs do it whenever thay are happy, firing off into the air, probably brassing up the other side of town!

The early SMLEs, P14s were equipped with volley sights back and front (along the side of the stock with a dial) these were used against bodies of troops at long range. I don't think it was veery successful, because they discontinued it and removed the volley sights when refurbisihing the rifles at a later date. I have a P14 with volley sights and I just bought a 1906 Sht Lee which has been re-barrelled to 303/25 which has the sights still fitted. I am thinking of switching the Bbl around with a 303 Sporter I have and restoring it to original if I can find a full wood junker.

I have been thinking that if I bought one of those cheap blue plastic tarps and pegged it out and tried firing at it from various distances it might be an interesting experiment. A pair of walkie talkies and a mate off to the side to check (and hopefully patch out the tarp) would work allright. Keep me out of mischief for a day or so if nothing else.

[Larry Gibson]

" I don't think it was veery successful, because they discontinued it and removed the volley sights when refurbisihing the rifles at a later date."

When volley fire was used the infantry had no organic indirect fire support. Artillery was many times not available or could not respond quickly enough (didn't have the radios back then for commo). With the advent of the 60 and 81mm sized mortars organic to infantry companies the use of volley fire was deemed not necessary. That's why the sights were deleted and volley fire was seldom used there after as it was "obsoleted" by the mortars.

Larry Gibson

[grumman581]

I have been thinking that if I bought one of those cheap blue plastic tarps and pegged it out and tried firing at it from various distances it might be an interesting experiment. A pair of walkie talkies and a mate off to the side to check (and hopefully patch out the tarp) would work allright. Keep me out of mischief for a day or so if nothing else.

On the Sandy Hook Tests of 1879, the bulls-eye was 6 ft in diameter at 2500 yds.

The target itself was 44 feet long by 22 feet high. It appears that they added extended wings that had a height of 16 feet (each, I'm assuming).

[MtGun44]

~1.5 miles with open sights! "We're gonna need a bigger target!"

Bill

[gew98]

" I don't think it was veery successful, because they discontinued it and removed the volley sights when refurbisihing the rifles at a later date."

When volley fire was used the infantry had no organic indirect fire support. Artillery was many times not available or could not respond quickly enough (didn't have the radios back then for commo). With the advent of the 60 and 81mm sized mortars organic to infantry companies the use of volley fire was deemed not necessary. That's why the sights were deleted and volley fire was seldom used there after as it was "obsoleted" by the mortars.

Larry Gibson

The use of indirect fire by Emma Gees spelled the end of rifle 'volley fire' , as well the mass of conscripts they had not the time nor need to teach proper volley fire technique to. As well in the end the time and material saved deleting the volley sights on the Enfields was well worth it. Note most military rifles did not have windage adjustment - for good reason as it was just another nurphy waiting to happen in field conditions hence the brits pinned in place alot of the windage adjustabe rear sights when rifles were in for overhaul and salvage. I have for example encountered many an 03 with a rear sight so loose it would walk left or right under recoil - not cool.

[Larry Gibson]

In reality it takes little to "teach volly fire". All you need do is have them set the range on their rifle sights and give an aiming point on line with the target. Was not difficult at all and took very little time. What took time was training the officers and NCOs to use it correctly. Also volley fire was not used against a "point target" such as a single soldier at 2000 yards. It was an "area fire" method used to blanket an area or target area with indirect fire. Soldiers were not expected to aim at individual enemy soldiers 2000 yards (just an example range) and hit that particular enemy soldier. Many times the soldiers firing had no idea of what the target actually was or exactly where it was. The observer was generally the only one who could actually see the target(s).

Larry Gibson

[John 242]

I would bet the reasoning behind dropping the anti-aircraft sights on the Type 99 was that;
1) Making and installing them wastes time and materials
2) The lead required for late war aircraft (400 plus MPH) would have made for a rediculously long sight
3) Under combat conditions the sights weren't used anyway, so what's the point?

The P-40 was a well armored aircraft with self-sealing tanks. A P-40 returning from an straffing run full of holes wasn't uncommon. That being said, how many didn't make it home after taking a round or two into something vital?

Is rifle fire ineffective against an aircraft, yeah. Sometimes though, you get lucky.

[gew98]

Not sure what your point is Larry... but that facts are that time/cost for training huge quantities of raw troops and the time/cost to continue volley sight manufacture far outweighed any potential benefits in the great war. And thus it died . England was in dire straights and could ill afford the prewar luxury of massed long range fire on "fuzzy wuzzies" they had till then fought.... out in the open....without artillery.

[Larry Gibson]

gew98

As I said, it takes little time to train troops to volley fire that have already been trained in basic marksmanship. If you field troops not trained then you've other problems to deal with and changing sights won't deal with them.

The use of volley fire with rifles and long range fire with machineguns did not die out in "the great War". The use of such is why we developed and fielded the .30 caliber cartridge Ma with the 173-174 gr BT bullet. It wasn't until the mid '30s when mortars became organic to infantry units that the use of volly fire was deemed no longer necessary. The adoption of the M1 rilfe sealed the deal on really long range volley and machine gun fire. The use of volley rifle fire and machine gun fire was also still practiced in and after WWII.

The reticle refered to in the Binocular TM earlier in this thread was instructed up through the early and mid '60s. It was mentioned in machine gun training on the M60 GP machine gun when tripod mounted. It is/was called plunging fire. That is fire from 600 to 1100+ meters. The instructers gave a couple accounts of it's effective use during the Korean War. The instructions for the use of the verticle stadia in the binocular retical is also for use with rifle men.

As I said earlier, based not only on study but on actual experience doing it, it is not difficult to train troops to volley fire effectively. If the can shoot and can adjust their sights they can volley fire. The hard part is training officers and NCOs how to use the reticle correctly and how direct (i.e. command) those troops to volley fire effectively.

I demonstrated that fact as recently as 2004 on the 800 meter transition range 91 at Fort Lewis with 6 riflemen (actual 2 were woman) using M16A2s vs a M240B and a SAW. My troops, using volley fire under my command, scored more hits across the course than the 2 machineguns score combined. Targets ranged from 150 to 800 meters. Those 6 troops were clerks from a Personel Service detachment that had just zeroed and qualified on the 25 meter Alternate M16 course. They had just basic marksmanship skills (only one of the 6 qualified expert) but the followed my commands on target location, setting the rear sight and engaging with 1 or 2 shots. The also followed commands to shift point of aim if the impact was not on target. Was not difficult to "train" them as the only time they practiced was when they shot the course of fire. Untill I told them what to do they had had no instruction in volley fire what so ever.

Larry Gibson

[gew98]

Larry ; the adoption of the Caliber 30 M1 ball bullet was a result of studying the French and the german heavy ball variants. The copy of the german sS patrone resulted in the the M1 bullet. It was not adopted for indirect fire..it was simply adopted for longer range and penetration all around. Why it was discarded in short order before the M1 rifle was adopted has never been clear , other than the M2 bullet was cheaper to produce .
In the days of 'volley fire' it had potential to be effective with large bodies of troops under direct control taking orders for range settings and manner of and when to fire. Such is not the case in warfare in the last 50 years. Interdiction fire with MG's registered on focal points in ones defence or attack is considerably more effective , and as the germans stressed and achieved in the great war well trained MG troops (scharfschutzenabtielung ) were worth their weight in gold.

[Larry Gibson]

gew48

Apparently we went to 2 different schools together. Sources I've read have the M1 bullet adopted as an almost direct copy of the Swiss bullet. Also the reason we adopted the M1 load was to have a long range rifle and machine gun capability. The M1906 cartridge was found to be quite inadequate for that during the great war. Long range in those days with the rifle was referred to as volley fire. Long range with machine guns was longe range plunging fire. In both instances the target(s) were many times not visable to the riflemen or gunners.

If you read Hatcher's Notebook, A brief history of the Service Cartridges, you'll find mention of the need for long range barrages, particularly from machine guns. You'll find the M1906 cartridge and bullet mentioned, you'll find or 180 gr match ammuntion mentioned, you'll find the British MKII cartridge and bullet mentioned, you'll find the French Balle D bullet mentioned and you'll find the 174 gr Swiss bullet mentioned.....but alas, you'll not find any mention of any German ammuntion used to develop the M1 bullet. German's use of the 196 gr bullet for their machine guns is mentioned as a step forward but the Germas were also criticised for using the 154 gr spitzer in their M98s which limited effective long range fire as did our use of the m1906 round.

Actually the development of the M2 ammunition is quite clear. It was developed because the M! ammuntion exceded the safety fans of most ranges, particularly Nationa Guard ranges. Thus the M2 was developed duplicating the M1906 shorter range ballistics. However, even that was too much for many ranges and a request was made to further reduce the ballistics (velocity) of the M2 cartridge to 2600 fps. That was approved. With the advent of mortars being organic to infantry units the sights of the M1 rifle did not have the long range volley capability of the M1903s as it was then deemed not needed. It was found that an improved M2 cartridge witha muzzle velocity of 2800 fps would give the riflemen adequate range with the M1. That improved M2 ammuntion was not put into production and the American GI and Marine went to war with substandard M2 ammunition with velocities of 2550 - 2700 fps. Perhaps because it was cheaper to produce, perhaps it was what was available given the production for safe use on stateside ranges. More than likely though the substandard ammunition was used simply because very few knew it to be substandard, that the M1 cartridge was supposed to be the "standard". The M2 ammuntion was known to be ineffective at long range by snipers who prefered the M1 cartridge and when they could not get that the AP M1 cartridge with the 165 gr BT AP bullet.


It's much the same with 7.62 NATO; our "standard " round for combat use was the M59 cartridge. The M80 was, to quote from TM 9-1305-200 Small Arms Ammunition, dated June 1961, "this cartridge is restriced for use in the temperate zone". M59 is the ammunition we were told we would use if going to war but would practice and qualify with in basic. We were told the same thing at infantry school at Fort Ord in '64. Yet during the Viet nam war I doubt if any M59 was used. Most all of the 7.62 ball ammuntion used was M80 and Viet Nam was/is definately not in the "temperate" zone. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the unintended ammunition gets used because it's just what is available.

Sometimes S**t just happens:-)

However, none of all that lessons the effective use of volley fire or "barrage" fire as it was known during the great war by riflement and machine guns.

Larry Gibson

[gew98]

Larry ; I have heard/read of the multitude of reasons why the M1 bullet was dropped...nothing clear as one reason other than a pattern of it being cheaper to manufacture and utilize really. I have never read of any swiss bullet being the measure upon which the M2 bullet was birthed from... the germans learned the hard way from the excellent boat tailed Balle D bullet and hence copied it ( initially for use in loading 8mm Lebel ammunition for captured rifles reissued ) , but by late 1917 the Long range MG fire needs brought about it's adoption for the german MG abtielung's and it was well received.
I would say there is little doubt the 'effect' of french and german heavy bullets influenced the American decision on the M2 bullet more so than a noncombatant caliber - just as how the US adopted a copy of the German S patrione bullet in 1906 ( just 3 1/2 years after the germans adopted the S patrone ).

[waksupi]

In a book I'm reading, the writer says they used cover fire at 1000+ yards over the troops when they were raiding trenches. At under 500 yards, it wasn't safe, as the trajectory put the attacking force in danger.

[Larry Gibson]

gew98

It was the M1 bullet design that was "influenced by the Swiss bullet not the M2 bullet. The M2 bullet was the "recreation" of the M1906 bullet and was not "influenced" by any German, French or Swiss bullets. The M2 was merely created to stay within the range fans of many ranges, mostly NG ranges, as the M1906 cartridges did but the M1 ammuntion did not. A matter of safgety is all.

Try reading Hatchers Notebook for reference to the M1 Bullet being influenced by the Swiss bullet. Lot's of other information in that book also.

Larry Gibson

[gew98]

Larry ; The M1 bullet was directly relevant to the german sS patrone. The M2 bullet was a rehash of the M1906 bullet that was a blatant copy of the german S patrone. The germans influenced the US bullets then more so than anything swiss...afterall the german bullets were the ones we faced then and learned from.
Comparable to the adoption of the M1903 rifle , albeit half baked in quality and execution to it's german counterparts. The more things change the more thay remain the same.

[Larry Gibson]

Well, I wasn't there when the M1 was designed and made. Perhaps you were (?) but I know that Hatcher was for sure. You should really read what he has to say about it.

That's what I said about the M2 bullet; a reinvention of the M1906 bullet. Discusion has been about the M1 bullet. Not doubting the influence of the German S bullet on the M1906 bullet. What happened with the adoption of the M1906 bullet is not what happened with the adption of the M1 bullet. Again, read Hatcher, he was there.

Larry Gibson

[Echo]

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



IIRC, which I may not, they started the battle with Martini-Henry rifles, elevating them per their Officers orders, and fired on the advancing Russian army until they got close enough to switch over to the Winchesters. And I believe the best elevation for rifle rounds max range is around 30* - air resistance slows the bullet. Raising the artillery pieces to 60* was probably to get the projectile into thinner air sooner, so there would be less retardation of the arty projectile. I know they did this in WWI with the Paris guns.

[phonejack]

That concept was used in WW1 with little sucess by either side.

[flhroy]

As kids one time a bunch of us gathered behind a friends fence with several ready made snowballs. We had a spotter to signal us when to launch and we would then each proceed to throw 3 or 4 snowballs high over the fence. With 15 to 20 snowballs falling out of the sky we figured nothing that came within range would be safe. That wasn't the case though, targets were surprising hard to hit. We had great fun trying though.

[atr]

During the Boer War, The Second War (1899–1902), the Boers DID use volley fire at long range, almost like artillery, to great effect both in cutting down the British and in keeping them pinned down so as not to advance. They were using the 7x57 Mauser, which was THE new smokeless powder cartridge with a 5 round magazine.

[Dschuttig]

Here is an unfortunate story of how a rifle can act like artillery. The guy unloaded his muzzleloader 1.5 miles away by shooting it in the air.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45751025

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

If I were making what the ATF calls Destructive Devices, ak explosive ordnance in the form of exploding 12 gauge shotgun shells, I would keep that little secret to myself...

Rich

[Saint]

Not sure if this has been said but one reason I would imagine is that if you fire a bullet straight you have a possibility of hitting anything in a straight line from the gun so even though the bullet is small as long as something is in front if it it should drop whether its at 100 or 500 yards. If you lob a bullet like artillery then that bullet goes up and comes back down and it will hit in a spot exactly the size of the bullet, no more and no less. It has absolutely no chance of encountering a target until its at the end of its flight.

[45-70 Chevroner]

This discussion has lasted a long time. Just a little note about something I found on my roof back a number of years ago. I had been up on the roof getting my cooler ready for summer. I always inspect the shingles when I'm on the roof. I spy an object sticking out of one of the shingles. It was a military .308 diameter bullet it had gone through one shingle but not the one under neath. It was sticking out of the shingle at about a 45 degree angle and only about 1/3 of the bullet was stuck in the shingle. I am quite sure it had been fired from a long way off. I'm sure it would have hurt badley and quite possiably could have killed if it had hit some one in the head.

[grumman581]

This discussion has lasted a long time. Just a little note about something I found on my roof back a number of years ago. I had been up on the roof getting my cooler ready for summer. I always inspect the shingles when I'm on the roof. I spy an object sticking out of one of the shingles. It was a military .308 diameter bullet it had gone through one shingle but not the one under neath. It was sticking out of the shingle at about a 45 degree angle and only about 1/3 of the bullet was stuck in the shingle. I am quite sure it had been fired from a long way off. I'm sure it would have hurt badley and quite possiably could have killed if it had hit some one in the head.

But would not have probably gone through the helmet of a soldier. It's the old "golden BB" scenario... If nothing else though, large amounts of plunging fire could cause the enemy to restrict their movements somewhat and act as a form of suppressing fire. It *could* serve a purpose... I'm not sure that I would want to rely upon it though...

[Multigunner]

Some troops wore various types of body armor during WW2. Besides helmets there were both breastplates and cloaks made of layers of silk. Silk has a balistic resistence not much less than kevlar, though prone to degradation that can render it useless, and extremely expensive in that quantity. A silk balistic vest cost over 5,000 USD even then.
Russian officers of the war with Japan of 1905 were given a nickel steel breatplate which fit over a thick silk balistic vest. The combination could stop a 6.5 bullet at medium to long range, and stop most lead pistol bullets at close range.
I think it was the Italians who sometimes used a scale mail shoulder covering, which along with the helmet would protect against the all but spent bullets of plunging fire. They also fielded a bullet proof riflemans shield that could be carried as a shield or set upright, with cutouts for the rifleman to aim his weapon. The sheild might also be strapped to the back of a soldier crawling through no mans land, and protect against fragments from airburst shells.

There was never enough armor to give it to every soldier, though the British mass produced many thousands of armored vests just before the armistice.

While few insurgents have effective body armor, obtaining body armor was a major prize in assaults on civilian police stations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Any modern army has access to body armor of sufficient strength to prevent serious injury from ultra long range rifle caliber fire. With the only unprotected areas being the face and limbs. Some armor protects upper arms and legs to just above the knee.

With the common availability of fairly well protected vehicles rifle caliber plunging fire could do little to hinder troop movements. It would be no more distracting than a light hail storm, with a cracked windshield now and then, and a few minor injuries to the unwary.

At most it would alert the enemy to the fact that you know where they are, so they'd know to take cover before the arty was called in.

[grumman581]

Basically, if it's raining, get an umbrella... If it's raining lead, get a heavy duty umbrella... :)

Now, what I would like to see would be some carpet bombing with a C-130 carrying a load of gravel (about 1.5-2")...

Does the Geneva Convention say anything about throwing rocks at your enemy? :)

[Multigunner]

Basically, if it's raining, get an umbrella... If it's raining lead, get a heavy duty umbrella... :)

Now, what I would like to see would be some carpet bombing with a C-130 carrying a load of gravel (about 1.5-2")...

Does the Geneva Convention say anything about throwing rocks at your enemy? :)

Back in the 18th or 19th century the British did some experiments on guarding remote beaches on Gibraltar using carefully angled tunnels cut into clift faces and packed with a huge black powder charge and tons of potato to melon sized stones.
Effects were devastating to say the least, like a shotgun with a ten+ foot bore.

Talk about "bringing the rain", I'd hate to be tasked with cleaning up the mess after one of those cut loose on a landing party of Frenchies or Spaniards.

[45-70 Chevroner]

But would not have probably gone through the helmet of a soldier. It's the old "golden BB" scenario... If nothing else though, large amounts of plunging fire could cause the enemy to restrict their movements somewhat and act as a form of suppressing fire. It *could* serve a purpose... I'm not sure that I would want to rely upon it though...

grumman581 you are right, it might get your attention but now damage. It probably would not have even gone through a millitary shirt and jack which is more than likely tougher than compisition shingles.

[Shiloh]

Wasn't that called volley fire??
Get a platoon of more of soldiers dropping rounds way out there.
Hence the extreme distance elevation on Krag and Springfield rifles??

SHiloh

[Multigunner]

I was just thinking about the anti-aircraft sights of the Japanese rifles.
Volley fire had little effect on fast sturdy built ground attack aircraft and fighters, but could be effective against the slower and lightly built spotter planes if they ventured to close.

Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower Sniper, drove away a civilian aircraft with well aimed fire causing some damage, and he was a single shooter.

If a hotly contested air field was the objective, enemy troops might have fired on corgo planes bringing in supplies, moving slow and low on final approach, or struggling to get in the air from a short field.
Wrecking an engine or cutting control cables during those critical moments could make a heck of a mess. Not to mention unarmored cockpits.

The Soviets made great use of light buplanes to harass German troops. The North Koreans used these same aircraft and tactics.
The low slow biplanes were usually flown at night or in very poor light.
The Soviets used female pilots, the Germans called them night witches or something to that effect.
The Japanese had fought the Russians in the past and expected to do so again, though the Russians had too much on their plate during WW2 and did not engae the Japanese.
Earlier on in China the Japanese ran up against the older Russian fighters , both monoplanes and biplanes.

I remember a comment one british officer made when full auto conversions of the Lee Enfield rifle were in the prototype stage. One projected use was against enemy ground attack fighters. The officer said that firing rifles at aircraft was an exercise in futility.
German WW1 ground attack planes had effective armor to protect engines and crew, and were very difficult to bring down with ground fire.

The patent for the first Browning .50 MG states that it was intended for the anti aircraft role. Heavier bullets than the infantry rifle could use were needed to counter increased armor protection of engine and cockpit and to damage sturdy metal structural members.

Increased use of improvised vehicle armor and barricades have caused a return of 7.62 weaponry to the field in a limited role. assault rifle cartridges just don't have enough penetration at longer ranges to deal with even light cover or vehicles. The standard 7.62 ball isn't much better, heavier special ball and AP are necessary to get the job done properly.