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

[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.