The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[William F. Owen]

- so yes, when I say map predicted fire I'm not making a mistake nor making things up. Pre-registered is a far simpler undertaking!

OK, just checking....

And the M2 has some sort of effect? I was always very doubtful of the GPMG in this role and the M2 would seem even less so.

[Chris jM]

OK, just checking....

And the M2 has some sort of effect? I was always very doubtful of the GPMG in this role and the M2 would seem even less so.

Apologies, I didn't mean to come across up-tight or defensive (which on a re-read of my post, I did). Yours was a legitimate query wondering if I had got it wrong, as pre-registered fire is common sense and map predicted is not.

Effect? Would have no idea. However, given that we had been hauling the HMG kit dismounted for that FTX we were more enthusiastic about getting rid of the ammo than we were about what was happening at the other end!!

I agree with you in that a MG (HMG, GPMG, etc) in the indirect role is at best novel misuse, and at most completely stupid.

[Ken White]

I agree with you in that a MG (HMG, GPMG, etc) in the indirect role is at best novel misuse, and at most completely stupid.

both novel misuse and stupid for the reasons that Wilf cites("Very low ROF, very heavy, and very accurate - so no beaten zone!").

For the GPMG, I don't agree that it is misuse or stupid though I fully acknowledge it would have little use in the types of warfare in which the the west currently engages. However, given an even slightly more intensive war against a like armed opponent and some use of the defense, be it hasty or deliberate and if delays and combat outpost lines are employed, the technique is valuable. Nor is it as complex as ChrisJM seems to imply. Further, while the mortar can indubitably do a better job in the indirect role, there are not nearly as many of them and they should go to the priority targets while the GPMGs with their poor accuracy and thus large beaten zone can do enough damage on the less important targets. Not to mention the times when the mortars are not available for one reason or another. Particularly valuable technique if your enemy has counterfire radar -- Mortar guys hate those, I bet...

I can see why Chris and Wilf alone here (of all you kids... ) seem to have practiced it:

The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards. This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator. LINK.(emphasis added / kw)

More here: LINK, LINK. The US used the firing tables and the clinometer as opposed to using the C2 Sight. The M60 MG had milled flats for placement of the Clinometer atop the two bands that attach the gas cylinder to the barrel.

[William F. Owen]

For the GPMG, I don't agree that it is misuse or stupid though I fully acknowledge it would have little use in the types of warfare in which the the west currently engages. However, given an even slightly more intensive war against a like armed opponent and some use of the defense, be it hasty or deliberate and if delays and combat outpost lines are employed, the technique is valuable.

I fully concur that it is a skill that would have application in more regular warfare. Our "ideal" target was enemy bridging or ferry sites, to try and disrupt work rates etc - but it does require a lot of practice.

Nor is it as complex as ChrisJM seems to imply.

I never found it that easy either. While the C2 sight isn't that complex calculating the line of flight in the low trajectory and "terrain shadow" gave me a few problems!!