Theory and practice in the use of MMG

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

Just a thought picqued by another (now closed thread).

BritCom forces had a theory and practice on the use of indirect fire from MMG (ie the Vickers MMG). This included the use of barrage fire where needed, ability to use FOs, etc - essentially using MMG as an artillery stle weapon. The Vickers was exceedingly useful in this area because of its design.

(It could be used in direct fire and fixed lines as well as any other weapon in its class).

Exapmples of it used in barrage mode in WW2 that I am aware of include El Alamein, in the relief of Kohima and Imphal, Sattleberg, Caen, Crossing the Rhine....

The Germans moved from their Maxims to lighter GPMG style M34/42 and do no seem to have continued (and may not have ever developed barrage fire concepts - I am a little unclear on this). They opted more for direct fire and fixed line styles.

I have been unable to identify any Russian doctrine on the matter perhaps because their mountings tended to obviate against it....

Japanese again appear not to have had the practice though again their weapons may have not been up to the task (with their MMGs based on Hotchkiss practice).

Where was the US on the matter ?

Was it an advantage to the BritCom forces over their opponents in the desert, NW Europe, SEAC/SWP ?

(Indeed it is still taught now in some areas using L7 GPMG)

Cheers

John Howard

[Guest Babra]

I had thought that was strictly a Canadian thing. Nice to know people were watching.

[Triumvir]

I've seen plunging fire/beaten zone creation been covered in our GPMG manuals (the MAG) but have never actually practiced it. Maybe the infantry does it, but the artillery already has a reasonable capability for indirect fire... 8)

[Stoffel]

Hey!

Another mag gunner

Still in the army?

Anyway its not a smart idea to sustain such fire over longer periods,since it is the squads most precious weapon.

Doing so will only attract enemyfire like mortars or artillery to take it out

[Ex Bellator]

I doubt it, check the profile, LOL!

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

I had thought that was strictly a Canadian thing. Nice to know people were watching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you pronounce Brutinel, anyway?

[dfgardner]

There is a concept inherent with all automatic weapons, including MGs, called plunging fire. If I recall correctly (going back on infantry platoon leader days) it was related to us that you could position the weapon to make the rounds strike more vertical than horizontal, creating this effect.

This could be used in the defensive mode when the MG was typically mounted on its tripod. By adjusting the elevation mechanism you could create the plunging fire effect and perhaps hit targets hiding behind berms, folds in terrain etc. Of course, adjusting the weapon to hit these dead spots meant you had sufficient defensive preparation time to test and see if you could hit the area.

Rather than a specific doctrinal technique, it was just related to us as something to put in the bag of tricks.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner:

There is a concept inherent with all automatic weapons, including MGs, called plunging fire. If I recall correctly (going back on infantry platoon leader days) it was related to us that you could position the weapon to make the rounds strike more vertical than horizontal, creating this effect.

This could be used in the defensive mode when the MG was typically mounted on its tripod. By adjusting the elevation mechanism you could create the plunging fire effect and perhaps hit targets hiding behind berms, folds in terrain etc. Of course, adjusting the weapon to hit these dead spots meant you had sufficient defensive preparation time to test and see if you could hit the area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Requires techiques of plotting and fire contral analogous to that used with mortars.

In the period in question rangefinders were still issued to MG Pl of the Inf Bn and to the MG Bn of the Inf Div (think BritCom) to assit in the plotting of targets.

Remember the British were the past maters at "silent registration" of targets....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rather than a specific doctrinal technique, it was just related to us as something to put in the bag of tricks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To not have a doctrine implies a lack of reconition of the characteristics of the equipment and its employment.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

I had thought that was strictly a Canadian thing. Nice to know people were watching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not Canadian - just not well known "south of the border" - something of the "not invented here" sysndrome perhaps ?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

I've seen plunging fire/beaten zone creation been covered in our GPMG manuals (the MAG) but have never actually practiced it. Maybe the infantry does it, but the artillery already has a reasonable capability for indirect fire... 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As does the Infantry - the 3in Stokes-Brandt mortar in the British Inf Bn in the period in question.

But surely it is the use of all the resources available to the commader that is the question.

If he/she (he of course in the period in question) wishes/requires an effect from the resources available to him it would be criminal not to exploit all of them.

If the weapon in question (the Vickers MMG) could be employed in and has the necessary support mechnaisms (range finders, fire controllers, ammunition, etc) why not use it ?

Indeed that it contiued to be used that way in WWII is beyond doubt. That it was used in at least Korea is to its credit. Does it (the weapon) and the method still have a roll to play ?

And to bring it back to the original questions - was it an advantage ? If so, why was it not employed by other nations ?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:

Hey!

Another mag gunner

Still in the army?

Anyway its not a smart idea to sustain such fire over longer periods,since it is the squads most precious weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is done through the MG Pl (part of the Spt Coy) or through the Divisonal MG Bn in the period in question (and the weapon in question).

In modern times it is still the MG Pl as the section uses M242 LMG.

Doing so will only attract enemyfire like mortars or artillery to take it out[/QB]

[Mace]

Given your role as Prime Minister of Australia and with a federal election coming up, do you really think you have the time to discuss MMG theory?

Mace

btw, where's my tax-cut, ya bludger!!!!

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace:

Given your role as Prime Minister of Australia and with a federal election coming up, do you really think you have the time to discuss MMG theory?

Mace

btw, where's my tax-cut, ya bludger!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As apublic servant you would be aware that you do not pay tax (as this implies wealth creation) but you just get the amount less any tax at the appropriate rate.

Anyway if I paid tax - I would complain too (OOPS! Dang let the cat out of the bag - where is my Minister for Small Business when I need him ?)

So - back to the point in hand (and it is a small point indeed), if I cannot partake of a little relaxation by exercising my mind ('cos with such a great team of boot-lickers like I have who needs to strain one-self running a country).......

[Username]

I thought the Vickers was a HMG. You aussies must have some kind of autocannon held at battalion level.

Lewis

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I thought the Vickers was a HMG. You aussies must have some kind of autocannon held at battalion level.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Vickers fired a rifle-calibre round, therefore it is by definition an MMG. HMG's fire a heavier calibre round, usually 12.7mm - 15mm. Over that calibre is usually classed as they utilise exploding rounds, as a "cannon" (there are exceptions though. The Russian 14.5mm HMG utilised a HE round).

The Vickers indeed saw a brief resurrection in the mid-1980's in the Australian Army when it was decided that all the remaining M60 GPMG's were too elderly and unsafe to use in the SFMG role. I knew one of the old diggers who was still serving (as a Major) who was asked to rewrite the Pam for their employment - in light of modern theories.

All he did was take down off his shelf the original Pam which he still had and hand it over to the Officer and suggest he copy that. They basically did - they just put some more pretty pictures in it.

They were finally retired due to the expense of purchasing .303in Ammunition on the open market (Australia had sold its .303in filling plant to India in the mid-1970's when it had officially abandoned that calibre for 7.62x51mm).

The Vickers was perhaps the greatest machine gun ever designed. No other approached it for reliability and accuracy.

In light of how CMBO treats the Vickers, I'd much rather see it utilised as as a semi-artillery weapon, to take into account its very long range (maximum of about 7,000 metres with Mk.VIIIZ ammunition), rather than trying to push it forward as one is forced to, in order to provide it with a line of sight to potential targets.

[MoatnGator]

Well as an old M-60 gunner I can only relate modern day tactics. I think the life span of a m-60 gunner was relatively short in chance encounters as fire was directed at them. In fixed positions we would map out a range card and would have avenues and elevations set on our wheels for plunging fire but this was only on exception.

The 60 liked to open with an attitude and liked targets in infilade(sp?) to mamimize the kill zone. Plunging fire would require firing at a distance with minimal effect while giving away the fixed implacement. (fixed as on tripod...we could always move.)

Anyway, plunging fire would negate opening for effect, revealing the position and offer opportunites for bounding to the flank early on.

M203s covered covered and concealed routes and claymores were often used as well.

In WWII, I do not know what would have replaced the m203s.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

The Vickers fired a rifle-calibre round, therefore it is by definition an MMG. HMG's fire a heavier calibre round, usually 12.7mm - 15mm. Over that calibre is usually classed as they utilise exploding rounds, as a "cannon" (there are exceptions though. The Russian 14.5mm HMG utilised a HE round).

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the game, I cant recall that the vickers is ever named heavy, medium, etc. But the HMG42 is called a heavy, the US 50 cal and water cooled 30 cal are heavy and the US air cooled 30 cal is called a medium.

The BREN is called a LMG btw (in the game).

Lewis

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

In the game, I cant recall that the vickers is ever named heavy, medium, etc. But the HMG42 is called a heavy, the US 50 cal and water cooled 30 cal are heavy and the US air cooled 30 cal is called a medium.

The BREN is called a LMG btw (in the game).

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps then the game is wrong ? Or has it recognised the unique place of the Vickers (but denied it its real capabilities) ?

Capable of sustained (only limited by ammunition supply, water and replacements for worn parts) direct or indirect fire to a range of 2-3000 yds (direct fire) or 7,000 yards (indirect fire).

They have fallen for the classic trap - wieght of equipment versus role in which it was employed.

And using differnt terminology from differnt perspectives.

Prior to WWII the British only had two terms - LMG and HMG witht he Bren/Lewis and Vickers fulfilling the two roles.

Witht he introduction of 15mm Besa and .5in Vickers and particularly Brownings into the Army inventory the need for a redfinintion took place - hence the divisions into LMG (rifle calibre section, magazine feed automatic weapon - Bren and VB), MMG (rifle calibre, belt fed weapon with sustained fire capabilities - Vickers) and HMG (larger than rifle calibre, belt fed, capable of indirect fire - .5in Browning). Date of change is really unknown but offical probably after the war (but generally used from about 1943/44).

The Germans used their terms to distinguish the role the MG34/42 was employed in and its support requirements (ammunition, manpower, spares, accessory equipment, transport) even though it was the same weapon.

God knows what the US called theirs and why......

[Hanns]

I've got an M-60 manual at home that has descriptions on plunging or indirect fire in it. It also has illustrations on the shape of the fire area cone and some other misc. information. I'll have to try and dig it out when I get home.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

In the game, I cant recall that the vickers is ever named heavy, medium, etc. But the HMG42 is called a heavy, the US 50 cal and water cooled 30 cal are heavy and the US air cooled 30 cal is called a medium.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then they have made the classic mistake of assuming that the weight of the mount determines the classification of the weapon, rather than the calibre. A tripod mounted MG42 should be classified as an MMG, not a HMG. Same for the water-cooled .30 cal. Only the .50 cal qualifies for the term HMG, as its the only one firing a larger than rifle calibre round.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The BREN is called a LMG btw (in the game).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it should be, if its mounted on a bipod. What would you call it if was mounted on tripod.

BTW the weapons name is not capitalised. I've pointed this out several times, Lewis. It is Bren, not BREN.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Then they have made the classic mistake of assuming that the weight of the mount determines the classification of the weapon, rather than the calibre.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps. But I think it more likely that they were considering something more on the order of the weight of effective fire that the weapon could produce in a given span of time.

Michael

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Perhaps. But I think it more likely that they were considering something more on the order of the weight of effective fire that the weapon could produce in a given span of time.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And therefore why is there a distinction between a water cooled Browning and a Vickers ?

Which had/has the "greater rate of effective fire" ?

What is definition used for "effective fire" and how can it "rated" ?

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Perhaps. But I think it more likely that they were considering something more on the order of the weight of effective fire that the weapon could produce in a given span of time.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how would you class the .50 cal? Its slow firing, very slow compared to the MMG's and basically hand loaded compared to the mythical "HMG42".

If one looks in all serious books on weapons technology, the division is taken to be on the basis of calibre, not the weight of mount nor the amount of fire the weapon puts out.

rifle-calibre to 12.7mm = LMG/MMG depending upon mounting.

12.7 to ~15mm = HMG

>15mm = cannon.

Another poster mentioned that the Germans didn't have anything to equal .50 cal, which is of course wrong, they had numerous HMG's and cannons in the 15-20mm class such as the MG-151/15 or the MG-151/20 or the FlaK-30 and so on.

They weren't as numerous as the .50 cal but I have my doubts that the .50 cal was the super weapon its portrayed as.

[Username]

I dont speak for BTS but I would guess it is by weapon weight. That is, the whole weapon system is heavy.

I would sort them as follows (US, German and British, Soviet):

WCHMG: water cooled HMG. Maxim, Vickers, Browning. All tripods, break down to multiple loads (with one heavy load being the gun itself) and cant fire on the move. JAM potential small and rotate speed limited. Volume of fire is characterized by Rounds per minute (not cyclic). Long range due to fixed mounts. All belt-fed.

GPMG/HMG: MG42 on tripod with accesories. Breaks down to multiple loads. Limited fire on the move as it retains GPMG/LMG form when broken down. High peak firepower due to cyclic rate and belt feed. Volume of fire is slightly reduced by barrel changes intermittantly. Long range due to fixed mount and optics. Overall firepower limited to ammo and number of barrels. JAM potential offset due to main gun part being the german GPMG/LMG in squads/HQs. weight of gun starts to be challenged by weight of ammo.

ACMG: Heavy barrel belt-fed air-cooled weapons on tripod mounts. US 30 cal and 50 cal and possibly russian 50 cal. Firepower is limited to barrel overheating, JAM potential higher than above weapons. Firepower in moving fire usually not possible. Firepower is characterized by bursts and low cyclic rates. These weapons being belt fed could still put out firepower similar to WCHMG for short durations. Lighter ACMG like the 30 cal break down easier than WC and can keep up with forward elements of an attack. 50 cal weapons exhibit great range and cover denial. Limited anti-vehicle properties depending on time frame. 50 cal really best supported by weapons carrier vehicle. 50 cal is really an ACHMG and 30 cal a ACMMG.

Machine guns are very similar to electric motors. They have what can be described as peak torque and continuos torque. The water cooled can be described as very high continuous torque. The MG42 a very high peak torque. In putting down a grazing fire line, a high peak torque would have its benefits. Motors btw are water cooled and air cooled sometimes! Water cooling being the best (with a heat exchange). But changing the motor on the fly would be nice too.

The names, light medium and heavy mean nothing really. Its semantics. The weapons are characterized by what they can do, not what they are called.

Lewis

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Username]

Did the Commonwealth countries ever field this weapon (besa) as a 'medium'? It seems that it would have been well suited to use in one of those carriers instead of the bren.