Indirect Machinegun Fire - continuation

[Michael Dorosh]

Can't remember which Canuck I was talking to on the forum about indirect MGs - my apologies, it's been a long week!

Anyway, working the weapons stand at the CF display at the Stampede, I got to talking to one of the sergeants about the C6 machinegun, and been learning a lot about it myself.

<font size=4>Afghanistan</font>

On its own, the C6 firing over iron sights will fire 800 metres with accuracy, and on the tripod with optical sight can fire out to 1800 metres (over a mile).

I asked about indirect fire - I can't remember exactly what conclusions we came to, or how relevant this is to WW II practice, though I suspect it is quite close.

Given the ranges above, the C6 can fire in the indirect role out to 3000 metres - or almost twice the effective range as it would fire directly. I also asked very specifically about whether or not this was considered "plunging fire" and the sergeant replied in the affirmative. Apparently the process is the same as for indirect mortar or artillery fire - the co-ordinates are given from a map reference, and the gun is fired without ever seeing the target - generally with a spotter in place somewhere up front observing the fall of shot.

Apparently the effect in the target area is one of great surprise....

[ July 13, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Gyrene]

Mike, I remember reading in Chesty Puller's biography that indirect machine gun fire was becoming sort of a lost art by the time WWII started. (Puller himself was a strong believer in that use of MG's)

Most US MG crews were trained in inderct MG fire from tripods before & during the early years of WWII, but for whatever reasons the practice fell out of use.

Gyrene

[JasonC]

The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

Could very well be the reason.

Gyrene

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

Which is interesting as the technique was taught in Oz until at least quite recently (and I have fired it, testing the techniques required to prove a point to the MG Pl Comd, with some M60s (not an ideal weapon by any measure) I was an MFC at the time and it required Mor Pl personnel because they were familiar with those techniques).

I believe it is still discussed in theory during training of MG Pl personnel.

And in regard to its use in WWII - Australians fired indirect at least in the Western Desert (at Tobruk Siege and the various El Alamein battles)and I believe in the Pacific (Sattleberg?).

Anyway this was discussed/argued/destroyed in earlier

[edward_n_kelly]

QUOTE]Originally posted by JasonC:

The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

[lcm1947]

I'm confused with everything that has been said about MG's lately so please bear with me, but is indirect fire going to be modelled in CMBB? And if so I can only hope that it will be modelled correctly in that alot of ammo wasted for nothing or at least not for much effect. I still am in the opinion that the MG-42 is too inexpense for what you get. I did some tests and it looks like you need 3 medium American MG's to have the staying power of one MG-42. I am still testing because I realize a few tests don't prove much but will continue if for nothing else just to satisfy myself about this weapon in CMBO. doesn't seem right to me.

[Andreas]

There are a few references to British MG Battalions (one organic to each infantry division) used plunging fire into 1945, during the Rhineland battles, as part of the 'Pepperpot' preparatory barrages.

[athkatla]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

Which is interesting as the technique was taught in Oz until at least quite recently (and I have fired it, testing the techniques required to prove a point to the MG Pl Comd, with some M60s (not an ideal weapon by any measure) I was an MFC at the time and it required Mor Pl personnel because they were familiar with those techniques).

I believe it is still discussed in theory during training of MG Pl personnel.

And in regard to its use in WWII - Australians fired indirect at least in the Western Desert (at Tobruk Siege and the various El Alamein battles)and I believe in the Pacific (Sattleberg?).

Anyway this was discussed/argued/destroyed in earlier</font>

[Londoner]

Mike, you mention the optical sight. I was talking to an ex RGJ officer afew days ago. He was adamant that the optical sight on most SF mgs, at least the GPMG and MG42 was for low light/visibility only. I don't know the technical jargon but apparently you don't actually look through it to engage targets at long range. You have some sort of rod near the gun which you align with the sight so when visibilty is bad you can bring fire down quickly on pre-designated points. Anyone know the ins and outs of this?

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Londoner:

Mike, you mention the optical sight. I was talking to an ex RGJ officer afew days ago. He was adamant that the optical sight on most SF mgs, at least the GPMG and MG42 was for low light/visibility only. I don't know the technical jargon but apparently you don't actually look through it to engage targets at long range. You have some sort of rod near the gun which you align with the sight so when visibilty is bad you can bring fire down quickly on pre-designated points. Anyone know the ins and outs of this?

It is the same sight that the mortars use. The C3 sight in British terminology if memory serves me. Actually 'sight' is something of a misnomer since it is really just a protractor - it allows you to measure elevation and direction from a fixed point: the rod - which is illuminated for night time use.

All that this allows you to do in MG terms is to fire the gun on a pre-registered area target that you cannot see from the gun position because it is now night-time/foggy/smoked out. You have to have registered the gun on the target area previously when you could see the target and spot where your rounds are falling for it to work.

As for indirect machine gun fire I think that it largely fell away post-war because the NATO 7.62 mm round does not have the long range punch of the .303 round. Sydney Jary is scathing in his comparison.

I am also reminded of the quote in Guy Chapman's memoir of WWI, 'A Passionate Prodigality', when he is asked by a MG officer whether he minds if the MGs fire a barrage onto a German communication trench opposite Chapman's position. 'No, I don't mind' replies Chapman, 'And I'm sure that the Germans won't mind it either'.

[Londoner]

Cheers for info determinant. So the idea that the "sight" gives a longer effective range is really not true I guess.

[Stoffel]

Ahhhh,that picture brings back some good and some bad (walking long marches carriyng the damn thing)memories

Best thing was firing at night with the infrared sight.

Has been my personal weapon too in the service

Regards shooting atlong ranges,I never used the iron sights,all our belts had 2 tracers for every 5 rounds.

So it was very easy to adjust firing.

Soom very good gunners in my company used the sights though to hit targets with one shot on long distances

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

...indirect machine gun fire was becoming sort of a lost art by the time WWII started.

It may not have been completely lost. in The Last Parallel, the author, a Marine vet (I forget his name; it's been over 40 years since I read the book) describes taking out patrols into the Chinese lines at night. They were frequently pursued back to their own lines by irate Chinese, and to discourage that practice he made an arrangement with the crew of an M16. During the daylight hours they registered on a patch of ground that the patrol would be withdrawing over. That night, sure enough the patrol would be stepping boldly back to their lines with the Chinese hot on their tails. When in the right position, the patrol radioed the M16 guys to open fire, which had the desired effect of driving the pursuers to ground while the Marines made their getaway. This was sometime around 1952-53.

Michael

[Olaf]

Great picture of a machinegun crew. Covering their goggles so as not to give off a glare that would bring enemy fire on their position is good to see. I am impressed that they seem to have a 3 man crew. The US army does not have enough infantry to usually man their machine guns with 3 men.I am not sure the ammo wrapped around the gunner's torso is a good idea. (Maybe staged for their friends back home). The belt would quickly fall off and trip the gunner and get too dirty to fire. As I recall from my history classes, indirect fire from machineguns started around 1890. The infantry did not seem to think machineguns(a new weapon system) were worth anything so they were originally assigned to artillery units who were now firing indirectly as the prefered method. WWI changed this belief. The indirect method will work if there is someone acting as a Forward Observer and giving the machinegun crew corrections on were to aim.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Olaf:

I am not sure the ammo wrapped around the gunner's torso is a good idea. (Maybe staged for their friends back home). The belt would quickly fall off and trip the gunner and get too dirty to fire.

I have no personal experience to draw on, but I have seen abundant photos of German LMG gunners in WW II swathed in belts of ammo. The same for US M60 gunners in Viet Nam.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was only for mobility though and as soon as they got into position the assistant gunner was there to keep the belt out of the dirt. If that's the case, then the photo here would appear a bit staged.

Michael

[Stalin's Organ]

I used to be a rifleman in the recee platoon of hte local territorial infantry Bn. Our secondary role was using FN MAG's (Gympy's, or GPMG's) in hte SF role.

Each gun had a crew of 4 - being 1 gun per recce detatchment of 4 rifles.

We never practiced indirect fire, but did do a lot of pre-registered defensive fire tasks, especially at night. As indicated above the "sight" was just a protractor to give repeatability of aim onto given points.

Talking about ammo expenditure - there are a couple of extreme cases from WW1 of sustained fire and associated ammo expenditure -

In August 1916 during the battle of the Somme a British MG company of 10 guns expended 1 million rounds denying the Germans use of ground 2000 yards to their front - an average of 138 rounds per minute per gun, inclusive of all time required for stoppages, water, changing barrels, etc.

A section of 2 Hotchkis guns 150 yards from the crest of Hill 304 during the battle of Verdun in 1916 kept the Germans at bay for 10 days. they fired 150,000 rounds - the normal load was 5000 rounds per gun, but they found an infantry ammo dump nearby (they were cut off from resupply) and press-ganged every available spare soldier into reloading clips!!

[cg84]

I'm a C-6 Gunner for my plt and although we can use the weapon indirect, we don't use it much for exactly the reason Jason C mentioned. An exception to the fact would be, having a forward spotter bring your rounds in for you(ie recce det, unmanned AC and so on).

We did a bit of it on my MG course and found unless your using a lot of MG's you don't really hit a whole lot due to the beaten zone being so huge. But I imagine it can be a great spoiling tatic when used on a large formation.

I don't know about 3000 meters as I think the farthest we had tgts out was 2200 meters. But with good ammo 3000 seems reasonable(velocity might be low).

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

[snip]A section of 2 Hotchkis guns 150 yards from the crest of Hill 304 during the battle of Verdun in 1916 kept the Germans at bay for 10 days. they fired 150,000 rounds - the normal load was 5000 rounds per gun, but they found an infantry ammo dump nearby (they were cut off from resupply) and press-ganged every available spare soldier into reloading clips!!

I was once lucky enough to see a demo of a sustained fire MG (same thing as Stalin's Organ is talking about). My abiding memory from it was being shown one day's worth of ammo next to the gun. This was a pile of boxes nearly as big as a small car (that's a European rather then an American small car!). The gun commander pointed at it and said: 'As you can see moving around is a problem for us if we can't use a vehicle'...

[Splinty]

I was in the U.S. Army Infantry and although we were taught about plunging fire, I can't recall one instance where we actually trained to use it. The most common use of the tripod mounted M60 or Ma Deuce was in the direct fire role. We did use the traverse and elevation mechanism to preset direct fire limits but never to set a predetermined plunging fire beaten zone. However references do occur in FM 7-8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gyrene:

...indirect machine gun fire was becoming sort of a lost art by the time WWII started.

It may not have been completely lost. in The Last Parallel, the author, a Marine vet (I forget his name; it's been over 40 years since I read the book) describes taking out patrols into the Chinese lines at night. They were frequently pursued back to their own lines by irate Chinese, and to discourage that practice he made an arrangement with the crew of an M16. During the daylight hours they registered on a patch of ground that the patrol would be withdrawing over. That night, sure enough the patrol would be stepping boldly back to their lines with the Chinese hot on their tails. When in the right position, the patrol radioed the M16 guys to open fire, which had the desired effect of driving the pursuers to ground while the Marines made their getaway. This was sometime around 1952-53.

Michael</font>