Infantry volley fire

[peacemaker45]

If one looks at most infantry rifles, from the Trapdoor Springfield down through most WWII rifles except the Garand, one finds ladder sights, often calibrated out to some extravagant number of yards, meters, or arshins. We all know today how difficult it is to hit a particular target at a thousand yards, even with the best rifles, optics and ammunition that modern technology can devise. Thus, those sights seem hopelessly optimistic, for individual aimed fire. It's hard to imagine an individual rifleman accomplishing much at those distances, if he's simply shooting at his opposite number.

However, it's not hard to imagine a company of rifles doing considerable damage, if firing at a closely ordered enemy formation. That's got to be what the designers of those guns had in mind, possibly with visions of Napoleon's columns dancing in their heads. And particularly before the advent of the machine gun as an area weapon.

It sounds pretty good, in theory. But did it ever work in practice? Were they ever used that way to effect?

Obviously, such a tactic would be reasonably easy to defend against, just spread out, and don't give the enemy such a large and juicy target. Presumably, this is why the Garand and later rifles featured much finer aperture sights, to facilitate individual aimed fire, and leave area fire to the machine gunners. Of course, there's some doubt as to whether that ever worked out the way the designers hoped, too.



Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[desidog]

I haven't heard of any success stories using plunging fire, but i'm interested to hear about documented examples.

The British discontinued the volley sights from their No.1 Enfields, so i would guess that around the end of WW1 the idea of indirect rifle fire had petered out.

/Also brought to mind, did any Arisakas with AA sights actually take down a plane?

 

[critter]

I had a friend who was a U.S. Marine who was in the first landing on Guadalcanal and spent a good deal of time on the island. During that time, he survived many banzi(?) attacks by massed Japanese.

He was the 'operator' of a 1903 Springfield rifle. He said they began rifle fire into the charging masses at 1200 yards with their rifles. Machine guns waited till they were within 800 yds.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I honestly can't see much use for rifle volley fire. The machine gun has been in constant use since WWI, and prior to then, artillery ruled the day for area fire. A volley of arrows probably bad more use than rifles. At least arrow volleys allowed King Leonidas and his Spartans to fight in the shade. That would take a lot of bullets to accomplish.

 

[Cosmoline]

When they came up with those things, I think they were still imagining massed Napoleonic era charges. While these did happen from time to time, they were increasingly rare and as noted would pretty much be suicidal for the attacking force by the time of smokeless powder. There were some examples in WW1 but fewer than the movies depict. The deliberate slow paced massed advance was actually the result of innovative artillery support techniques developed later in that war that required perfect timing.

 

[MtnCreek]

Augustus McCray.

 

[Destructo6]

landing on Guadalcanal

He said they began rifle fire into the charging masses at 1200 yards with their rifles. Machine guns waited till they were within 800 yds.

Guadalcanal is heavy jungle. I'm curious where one would see an individual target past about 100 yards.

I've spent some time in the jungles of Okinawa, which is not nearly as thick as that on Guadalcanal, and you would be hard pressed to pick out a man at 50 yards.

 

[SilentScream]

If you look at the development history you see an overlap where the development of smokeless (more or less modern) cartridge guns, workable automatic weapons, and infantry tactical theory. Unfortunately tactical theory didn't or couldn't keep pace with the speed at which the weapons engineers improved all facets of design. Long story short volley sights; I think, were an attempt to keep pace with abilities of modern weaponry.

 

[DanTheFarmer]

Also remember volley fire can be used to attack a target on a reverse slope, "the backside of the hill". Indirect fire technology, methods, and philosophy was changing quickly from Civil War era to WWI era. At various times volley fire by infantry seemed a viable option to hit a target that was not accessible to direct fire. Eventually it fell out of favor as field artillery took over for long range, planned, massed fire and infantry controlled portable mortars took over for the role of immediately accessible indirect fire but for a while there it wasn't clear which method(s) would prove best.

There's my $0.02.

Dan

 

[Cosmoline]

Guadalcanal is heavy jungle. I'm curious where one would see an individual target past about 100 yards.

I don't know about 1,000 yard charges, but there is open grassy terrain there along some of the hills and ridges.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It sounds pretty good, in theory. But did it ever work in practice? Were they ever used that way to effect?

Volley fire was used against massed infantry in the open. In the opening days of WWI the Germans advanced in mass -- there are photographs taken by British photographers showing them advancing shoulder-to-shoulder, with their officers on horseback (Keegan published one in his book on WWI). The British used volley fire under those circumstances, and the Germans were convinced they were facing machineguns.

However, the Germans soon stopped massed attacks, and the usefulness of volley sights and volley fire was over.

 

[C-grunt]

I always figured volley fire against enemy emplacements would work fairly well. Say a machine gun nest on top of a hill.

 

[Reloadron]

Not sure about all this "volley fire" stuff but do recall (consider this is vague memories of 45 years ago) that following recruit training at MCRD San Diego in 69 we were bussed as young Marines to Camp Pendleton CA. for ITR (Infantry Training Regiment). I remember one evening at dusk when the entire company of us were lined up (300 men). We laid down a field of fire with our M14 rifles on full auto, every 5th position was an M60 MG and maybe some M79 grenade launchers tossed in with other weapons. One heck of an impressive display of fire power at 200 yards.

As to Guadalcanal? I missed that one but also had a friend who was there. A guy named Norm but my entire life I called him dad. Based on conservations with my father the actual beach head was maybe a few hundred yards at tops. Dad ended up with malaria on the canal and eventually went to the 8th Marines 155 MM Gun Batallion. When he passed away I inherited his book. Pretty cool stuff and pictures. All things considered Guadalcanal wasn't all that bad for the 1st Marines. Peleliu was the real nightmare followed by Okinawa.

While off topic, for anyone with an interest, during the 50s NBC ran a series on TV called Victory at Sea. Mandatory TV watching on a Sunday afternoon for any kid in the 50s whose dads served in WW!!. Google it! Great WWII footage, absolutely great. I have the series on DVD and it s pretty cool stuff. No fields of fire but incredible WWII footage.

Ron

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I always figured volley fire against enemy emplacements would work fairly well. Say a machine gun nest on top of a hill.

It does, although not at such extreme ranges -- it's very rare to be able to detect an enemy position or emplacement on a modern battlefield at 1,000 yards or more.

But concentrated fire on suspected enemy locations works -- I've used it many times.

 

[rcmodel]

it's very rare to be able to detect an enemy position or emplacement on a modern battlefield at 1,000 yards or more.

Were it not for drones.

But still, massed rifle plunging fire went out with early WWI tactics.

Plunging machinegun fire was still in the Army .30 Browning MG field manual in 1964.

rc

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Even with drones it's hard -- especially since to deliver aimed rifle fire at that emplacement, you need line of sight. If you pick up an enemy position out there with a drone, zap it with a drone or with artillery.

 

[rcmodel]

+1

Not arguing.
Just saying.

And if you could see it, it would be long gone anyway before you could gain permission to shoot at it from some brass hat in Phoenix AZ Drone Control, or some other place half way around the world!!

rc

 

[ErieLurker]

Can still remember an Infantry Section (8-man) fire control command for "Volley Fire", but I think that it was intended as more of a suppression technique out to as far as ~800 metres, each man firing a single round, one after the other, on down the section line. Makes for a half-decent beaten zone, I guess. Fine against a point target, but nothing like the old Line Infantry volleys fired successively on a massed enemy body, whether by rank, company, or whatnot.

The Brits at (First) Mons may have been one of the last good examples of that.

 

[BullfrogKen]

The 5th and 6th Regiment Marines at Belleau Wood engaged individual Germans advancing in the open at distances of 800-1000 yards. They did not have their machineguns, as they were held up in the rear. So individual Marines took aimed shots at the advancing German forces. Captured Germans were astonished when they discovered they were taking rifle fire as it was so accurate, they thought it was from machineguns.


I remember in the 90s studying machinegun plunging fire tables developed during and after WWI. And we practiced it. The Browning 50 Cal had too long a range to use it often or observe its effects, but the M60 had a great trajectory for plunging fire. The MK19 was more effective by heads and shoulders, as it were. It had a natural arc already built in. And it most certainly had "ladder" sights.

 

[dvdcrr]

If you provide a full human shape frontal target at 800 yds to a rifleman with an M1 garand you are in serious trouble. He might not get you with the first shot I dont think he'll need another enbloc.

 

[Roadkill]

The purpose of volley fire was as much to deny access of an area as hit someone. In trench warfare the section to be attacked was blocked off on both sides and the rear in order to prevent additional troops from reinforcing the designated area. Box it in, block it off, pulverize, then direct assault. Say a trench section of 500 yds, 300 yds between trenches, one battalion of 400 riflemen steadily firing with sights set at 900 yds, artillery set at 1200 yds and at 300 on each side, 10 Vickers water cooled MGs zeroed on the opposite 500 yds of trenches - prior to assault walk the artillery back to the front trench and stabilize, shift the MGs to blocking avenues of reinforcement, and then send the Inf over the top. Walk the artillery back as the Inf gets close. A German Captain named Mueller (aka Durchbruch Mueller - break through Mueller) refined this type of action to an art.

 

[Jcinnb]

Saw every one of them and still watch every time I see one.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Military tactics have always lagged technology. Even today our Pentagon is fighting the tactics of the last war......

 

[kBob]

Look up a place called Plevna and both the dates 30 July 1877 and 11 SEPT 1877. The Russians were slow learners.........


Long range rifle volley fire in 1877 could be effective against folks giving a good target. Because of the success on those two days military planners likely thought long range firing was important enough to demand along with their demands for repeating rifles.

I believe both Boers and Brits engaged in long range volley type firing during their little South African mix ups.

Consider that in the US Army Infantrymen in the 1880's with .45-70 trapdoors were expected to deliver fire to 1000 yards with the full length rifles. Even the Carbines required record firing to 600 yards. US planners placed so much emphasis on long range fire that they replaced the successful Spencer Carbines with their 8 shot magazines with the flatter shooting longer ranging single shots.......one unit that had their Spencers taken away but a year and a half before they really needed them was the 7th Calvary........ got to wonder if it would have made a difference.....

-kBob

 

[hovercat]

rifles were designed and sighted for 1,200 yards. +6 feet midrange was OK because it would not go over the heads of cavalry. Firearm tech is not the only thing that has changed.