Indirect Machine Gun Fire - Effective?

Sheldrake · Feb 21, 2018

harolds said: ↑

Thank you Sheldrake. Very similar to the arty tables I used in the Army. Delving deeper into the murky recesses of my memory, I think the Browning M2 may have had similar tables too but the technique was out of favor when I was in.
Click to expand...

I suspect the development of infantry mortars may have played a part in overshadowing indirect MG fire. In 1916 the new, revolutionary stokes mortar had a range of 1,200 yards, far outranged by a MMG. By the 1960s the range of a 3"/81mm mortar ranges had trebled.

OpanaPointer · Feb 21, 2018

So what if you had, purely as a theoretical exercise, five PBRs with three .50s each laying down interdiction fire about two miles into the dirtside. Would that violate any rule?

USMCPrice · Feb 21, 2018

harolds said: ↑

Thank you Sheldrake. Very similar to the arty tables I used in the Army. Delving deeper into the murky recesses of my memory, I think the Browning M2 may have had similar tables too but the technique was out of favor when I was in.
Click to expand...

The technique of a machine gun barrage using indirect fire pretty much ended with WWI. As Sheldrake noted, this coincided with mortar development. The technique of indirect fire with the machine gun was still taught at least into the 1990's (and possibly still is though I have no direct knowledge) as a method to use in certain tactical situations.

Ron Goldstein · Feb 21, 2018

Despite the fact that I served overseas in WW2 for nearly four years I only fired at the enemy on one occasion, with a .30 Browning machine gun and I wrote about it here:

BBC - WW2 People's War - Diary Entries 11th April 1945

Ron

Andy235 · Apr 25, 2018

superbee said: ↑

I have read several accounts on this forum of indirect machine gun being employed - firing a machine gun at a target that it did not have a direct line of sight to. I have no doubt that this could be done, and that troops could be trained to do this.

But how effective was this technique in actual combat? I mean, did it really cause a significant amount of casualties, deny the enemy a location, or keep units pinned down for significant lengths of time? I don't recall reading any accounts that described being under indirect machine gun fire. I wonder if anyone could direct me to such an account in a book or other publication.

Was the average machine gunner / crew really capable of performing this? I would think the calculations would be mathematically complex; involving velocity, ballistic coefficients of the projectiles, distance, wind speed / direction, gravity, etc.

I kind of get the feeling that this might look good in theory but was perhaps lacking in practicality.

Any insights would be welcome. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I would assume dropping a lot of extra lead on a large area occupied by the enemy would not provide a lot of direct hits, but it would force them to stay under cover and hamper their ability to move freely and perhaps cause extra mental stress.

lwd · Apr 25, 2018

Finding cover is a bit problematic as the rounds aren't coming in horizontally. It may not even be clear where they are coming from. I've heard the French use of indirect fire with rifles (by company's I think) during the Franco-Prussian war was actually fairly effective. Not sure how that was defined though. Mg fire should work similarly.

Log in or Sign up

Indirect Machine Gun Fire - Effective?

Sheldrake Member

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

USMCPrice Idiot at Large

Ron Goldstein WWII Veteran

Andy235 Member

lwd Ace

Share This Page

About US

Useful Links