Longest Engaged Distance by a .30 cal MG

Has a squad mg ever been used to enfilade or plunge fire beyond 1,000 meters? I read one claim that the mg-42 was used out to 1.5 miles. The farthest I've read for the more modern M-60 was 1,500 meters during plunging fire.

 

During WWI mgs were often used for indirect fire and in that mode likely exceeded ranges of 1km. In the Franco Prussian war the French used rifles in company volleys in a similar way.

 

I don't know if it was still in use during WWII, but British doctrine as late as WWI used plunging fire to create a "beaten zone" with both rifles and MG's to interdict the movement of troops well out of sight (perhaps spotted by a plane or an observer higher or closer than the shooters). I've always suspected it not very effective, but it may have given the shooters a morale boost. A .303 (or any standard round of the period) could still be lethal out to 1,500 or 2000 yards if you were unlucky enough to be hit.

 

If my memory isn't completely dead I recall a 30-06 military ball ammunition, under ideal conditions and mid-range correctly set , should fall about 10-12 feet in 1000 yards, really not bad, the height of two soldiers. Certainly good for direct fire. Indirect would seem to be hit and miss without some type of spotting or know distance to target. A water cooled gun could get a lot of rounds out quickly so area fire could be useful particular if some ranging was involved well beyond that. I would guess 1500-2000 yards with known range would or could cause some disruption.

It raises a question is there any evidence of actual engagements with good results ? It would seem more machine guns would be needed on a target ..

Accuracy is not the issue here but I also remember a woman held the record for 1000 yards using a match grade Springfield , back in the late 50's , of something like 8.45" for 10 rounds. Apples and oranges but doubling or tripling that would be pretty damn good. Of course if indirect it was fall into bomber hits on a factory range.

 

I have read that the Japanese used indirect MG fire on Iwo Jima to inflict casualties on U.S. Marines. I remember when I took my training at Ft. Benning they mentioned this technique. This is one reason that the T&E devices on the tripods had gradations on them so that they could sight in on an area without using the sights. Armies even had trajectory tables for use in indirect fire. It seems you'd need three things for this technique to be effective: open terrain, a fairly heavy concentration of enemy troops, and a surplus of ammo.

 

The actual drop at 1000 yards is closer to 350 inches (29 feet), depending on the load, slug, altitude, etc. Of course, that's with a typical 100 yard zero, not the mid-range zero you mention which assumes the barrel is already tilted up several degrees. The sights on a Garand have a 1200 yard maximum setting, so given that the 30.06 is a fairly typical rifle cartridge of the era, one might assume that a battery of machine guns firing a 30.06 at 2000 or 2500 yards might well be effective with plunging fire.

I just have to take the pessimistic view because of all the variables that go with such a shoot. Each gun would have to perfectly aligned to fire along a compass azimuth, and not change direction even by a degree or two despite recoil, etc. And that assumes that the original compass azimuth is perfect!
Then, comes wind which creates much prolonged swearing at long range civilian shoots at even 500 and 1000 yards. The slower a slug moves (as at very long range) the more drift the wind creates. A steady head-wind might drop your slug a hundred feet or more, a tail wind and you're shooting beyond, side wind and you're just dropping slugs into grass on either side of the target.

In my opinion, while you might well inflict some casualties under perfect conditions and with perfect calculations, most of the time you'd just be wasting ammo.

 

Sometimes one was not looking for distance..............

See my diary entry for April 12th 1945

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/30/a2017630.shtml

Ron

 

Ron, always informative and fun reading your diary comments .

KB, I am not knowledgeable on the subject, clearly, but I share your view on the effectiveness of all this.I think it would make the shooters feel good but these ones being shot upon would think it nuisance fire....except for the unlucky sod ( for Ron) who happened to be hit. Sort of like dropping bombs from 25,0000 feet on a specific target but carpet bombing was pretty disruptive, perhaps a more apt analogy.

It would appear that some anecdote would come up about indirect machine fire if it worked.

OP, 84 pounds a minute is impressive !! Assuming it hit an area. Interesting to see the quad 50's fire.

Gaines

Gaines

 

If your target was say an infantry formation in marching order the potential to disrupt it is certainly there as well as cause some casualties. My impression is that engagements in the 1,000 yard range were not uncommon in WWI as mgs of the time were treated a bit like light artillery. Gattling guns were used quite effectively at ranges of 600-800 yards and they were considered to be effective out to at least 1200 yards. Again I'd look for some details of WWI battles to find some longer range examples. The Italian campaign during WWII might also offer some examples where mgs would be firing over the heads of assaulting troops or perhaps down on them from various heights.

 

M-60 is generally 1,000-1,100 meters with direct fire on a man size target using the bipod and 1,500 meters on a vehicular sized target. When using the tripod and T&E mechanism the ranges are increased due to the more stable platform and the ability to "dial in" minute adjustments. In the defense when the guns are emplaced you fill out a range card for each gun specifying left and right lateral limits and their setting on the T&E mechanism both deflection and elevation. Then the range and deflection to various terrain features such as bridges, structures, tree groves, etc. this allows you to make gross adjustments quickly, at which point you dial in the estimate for the target in relation to the known point. Then you fire a burst and the A-gunner observes the tracer strike or bullet splashes and calls adjustments to bring you on target. As for plunging fire, casualties are not the main effect you are hoping to achieve it's area denial. Like with suppressive fire, if you kill some bad guys great, but the main objective is to keep their heads down to prevent them from engaging and observing friendlies while they maneuver against them. Say a unit is moving down a road towards you, there is a dead space to the right and relatively open area with limited cover to the left, you might use plunging fire to deny the enemy the ability to maneuver through the dead space, it's hard to get a man to move through an area with dust kicking up from impacting rounds.

The WWI era .30-06 (M1906) had a army tested maximum range of 3,300-3,400 yds/3,020 to 3,110 meters. The contemporary WWI German round used a boat-tailed "spitzer" bullet (the original M1906 was flat-based, round nosed) and the better aerodynamics gave it a range of 5,140 yd/4,700 meters. This was about a 33% greater range. With the M1 ball round the US adopted a boat-tailed bullet with 7 degree Ogive and along with a different propellant IMR 1185 the range increased to a comparable 5,500 yd/5,030 meters. With the M2 ball the US went back to a flat based bullet and range dropped back to 3,450 yd/3,150 meters. With the increased employment of light mortars post-WWI the need for "machine gun barrages" using indirect fire was generally eliminated. Going back to my earlier example of the dead space, a 60mm mortar dropping rounds into the dead space would be even more effective as an area denial tactic than indirect machine gun fire.

 

^
BOOM! thanks.