Indirect fire VS direct fire (M240, M2, M249, ETC. ETC.)

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Draco771

Hello, I have a question on weapons, and figured why not ask the guys who are trained experts with weapons?

Recently I've been told that the M2 .50 Cal, and the M240 are indirect fire?

And I was curious as to why they are labeled as indirect fire, considering an M249 at an "arc" trajectory can hit targets at 1,000 Meters but is considered direct fire, same with various long range rifles etc...

Can some of you Quiet Professionals put in some insight?

Next time you ask us a question your fingers better be bleeding from all the typing you've done searching for the answer yourself.

You could have easily found your own answer concerning the above question.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...5.htm#sectioni

Next time consult the FM before you ask stupid questions.

Team Sergeant

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by blue02hd

I saw this in practice as a PVT in the RGR Bn. We were training in Yakima, and the plunging fire theory was actually tested with a company's compliment of 240's. I remember seeing the guns lined up and super elevated about 2 km's away from our obj that we built. I was in a line platoon, so I couldn't give you any more details on how they set it up. I will say that this was the one and only time I ever saw this, and for good reason. The ammo requirements were insane, the accuracy was very limited, and the effects on the target were minimal.

Kind of a neat story though, but not as cool as the Chechyans using RPG's in plunging fire mode against the Russians at Grozny.

Anyhow,,,,,

Works a lot better with MG battalions and companies with semi-permanently emplaced, water-cooled guns using 250 round belts. Steel rain.

Not sure how you can use RPGs like that, since all of the ones I have seen had a self-destruct feature that detonates them at around 1,000 meters.

TR

[Pete S]

I learned the basics of it in Advanced Machine Gunners School using .50 cals.

It is very difficult to set up and have effects on target within a short period of time.
A normal section of six 240's, in the offensive role, will be hard pressed to have effects on target before ammo requirements become an issue.

The only advantage to indirect fire is that the support by fire can be in full or partial defilade.

In the defense it may be useful, but only if there is the time and means to preregister the targets. Terrain and amount of guns permitting.

[Draco771]

Thank you everyone for your answers, and the information, personally I think that'd be pretty cool to see a line of Machine Guns bursting down like that... That'd be insane to be going into a field, and all of a sudden have Machine Gun fire coming down on you out of nowhere... I can't imagine what that would be like...

LOL

blueO2hd 2/75? (right on!)

and Team Sergeant, I personally didn't think to look into the Machine Gun FM... (Because at that point in time, I was going for human sources who have greater expertise and experience then a "book" because of a Lieutenants remark of them not being direct fire weapons) personally I didn't even know it existed until last night.

I greatly appreciate all of the input you QPs have put down, thank you.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

abc_123 hits the nail on the head. (Not bad for an "O". )

Thank you.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Draco771

and Team Sergeant, I personally didn't think to look into the Machine Gun FM... (Because at that point in time, I was going for human sources who have greater expertise and experience then a "book" because of a Lieutenants remark of them not being direct fire weapons) personally I didn't even know it existed until last night.

I greatly appreciate all of the input you QPs have put down, thank you.

That "book" (FM) is written by former soldiers and is the very book I learned from......

[Mike]

There was a VC or NVA RR crew that used to zip a few rounds into camp indirectly from out in the bush.
They managed to kill some people.
Made a hell of a noise incoming, but very fast and hard to duck.
Doubt if the method was in any manual.

[Noslack71]

I recall the term "beaten zone or beating zone" used to describe indirect fire from an M-60, or machine gun. It was indirect, plunging fire used either for recon by fire, or if we had spotted some folks that were in range, but not from direct fire weapons, and we could not get a fire mission quick enough. I seem to remember he would traverse the area, and it appeared from the tracers that he got ok coverage in a small area arcing or lobbing the rounds in. The only other time I saw this used was a Quad .50 worked over a valley below a small fire base I was on. They had literally a ton of ammo in the bunkers, and it impressed me.

Noslack

[CSB]

In my mini-museum (china cabinet in my office) I still have an original Firing Table for the M-60 Machine Gun. Just like the firing tables for artillery, it gives range vs. elevation (in mils) for the M-60 MG.
That's why there are flats machined into the top of the M-60 barrel, they are for the gunner's quadrant.

Machinegun training tasks have changed somewhat with time as a result of differences in accepted employment techniques. In the era of World War I, for example, machinegun companies and even battalions were employed. Special training was required for officers assigned to these units because indirect fire was a common role for the employment of machine guns at that time. Training called for indirect target engagements to a distance of 2,000 yards. Tripod use on machineguns permitted effective use of the machinegun in an indirect fire role (Merkatz, 1915; Musham, 1921; Indirect Fire-Machinegun, 1923; Heavey, 1936; Hutchison, 1938; Marshall, 1951). When machinegun crews were organized into companies in wars before the Korean Conflict, the indirect fire mission for the machinegun was considered important. After the U.S. Army experience in Korea, this mission and the training with which it was associated lost its place in the POIs. The nature of the terrain in Korea and the
beginnings of fluid engagement may have caused a shift away from an emphasis on indirect fire employment for the machinegun (Marshall, 1951). Currently, this mission is no longer taught.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

[Pete S]

Originally Posted by Noslack71

I recall the term "beaten zone or beating zone" used to describe indirect fire from an M-60, or machine gun.

The beaten zone is the area of the ground upon which the cone of fire falls.
The beaten zone applys to all classes of fire with respect to the ground, but is easier to identify when it is plunging fire as opposed to grazing fire.

Indect fire is a means of employment, not a class of fire.

Some of the terms concerning employment, characteristics and classes of fire are being confused for one another in this thread.

[Uman]

You need to look for TR 240-15 Machine Gun Techniques of Machine Gun Fire, Indirect Laying, 1925

This is the bible of the lost art of indirect fire with machine gun. Firing overhead, firing over mask, laying in more than one gun.

It opens up more of the battle space to the SBF positions.

Post WWI was the high point of machine gunnery and it carried into WWII. It fell off after that

[CSB]

This is an old post, recently reactivated.

There are Firing Tables for the M-60 machine gun.
The nomenclature is "FT-7.62-A-2".
We had them 38 years ago in Korea. I guess they are still in the Army publication system.
They were thin booklets, about 8 pages, with the orange/brown cloth cover.
Inside were the elevation required to hit a target at a given range.
You will find the reference to the Firing Tables in the back of the operators manual.
(See image).
Supposedly, the tops of the gas port on the barrel were machined flat, so as to be parallel to the centerline of the bore (See picture of M-60, note arrows).
Then, by looking up the range desired in the firing table, the gunner would determine the elevation required. The necessary elevation would be dialed in the gunners quadrant (see image), the quadrant would be laid across the flats, and the gun elevated with the Traversing and Elevating mechanism on the tripod until the bubble was centered, not unlike elevation for a mortar tube.
Azimuth/deflection was a matter of compass work.

In theory, my six M-60's (I had a Recon Platoon, with six "Rat Patrol" gun jeeps, each with an M-60 with tripods) could be laid for direction in defilade, elevated, and commence fire towards a target without the gunners ever seeing their target.

We never even practiced it. Seemed like a huge waste of ammunition.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by CSB

This is an old post, recently reactivated.

I've observed this in action. It was used to lay a helicopter trap and downed three Soviet helios (including one of the first 'flying tanks'). Three M1917A1s configured in .303 were situated where the helios were expected to make a gun run on a village. They flew into a steel rain squall. First two crashed landed within a klick, the third pulled up into one of the sheets of rain and dropped like a stone backwards to the ground.

Used a USAAID child's protractor, a plumb bob, and the FT.


Lots of goat for dinner that night.

Allegedly...

[mojaveman]

Originally Posted by MR2

I've observed this in action. It was used to lay a helicopter trap and downed three Soviet helios (including one of the first 'flying tanks'). Three M1917A1s configured in .303 were situated where the helios were expected to make a gun run on a village. They flew into a steel rain squall. First two crashed landed within a klick, the third pulled up into one of the sheets of rain and dropped like a stone backwards to the ground.

Used a USAAID child's protractor, a plumb bob, and the FT.

Afghanistan in the '80s?

[Loadsmasher]

Originally Posted by MR2

I've observed this in action. It was used to lay a helicopter trap and downed three Soviet helios (including one of the first 'flying tanks'). Three M1917A1s configured in .303 were situated where the helios were expected to make a gun run on a village. They flew into a steel rain squall. First two crashed landed within a klick, the third pulled up into one of the sheets of rain and dropped like a stone backwards to the ground.

Used a USAAID child's protractor, a plumb bob, and the FT.


Lots of goat for dinner that night.

Allegedly...

I love this forum.