Volley sighs & shooting

fat tony

fat tony

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Location
a forward observation post in the L-F-H horizon, o
This may be a bit of a longshot, (pun not intentional), but has anyone here got the chance to fire a WWI era military rifle with volley sights on a range with other shooters on the line who were also shooting with volley sights from a WWI era military rifle?

I don't know much about the details of their use, except that they were used to roughly replicate the beaten zone of a machine gun with a # of soldiers firing (the more the merrier, I presume) at extremely long ranges.

I am guessing that this is something that you would likely read about in a book rather than speak to someone who trained with the rifle as such or used the technique in combat.
 
fat tony said:
This may be a bit of a longshot, (pun not intentional), but has anyone here got the chance to fire a WWI era military rifle with volley sights on a range with other shooters on the line who were also shooting with volley sights from a WWI era military rifle?

I don't know much about the details of their use, except that they were used to roughly replicate the beaten zone of a machine gun with a # of soldiers firing (the more the merrier, I presume) at extremely long ranges.

I am guessing that this is something that you would likely read about in a book rather than speak to someone who trained with the rifle as such or used the technique in combat.
Click to expand...

I think the pun is intentional! I am interested in this question and wonder if anyone has staged a re-enactment using this technique.:wave:

Perhaps if a military rifle club had access to a 1500 yard range or field and set up a hundred large red balloons, they could video
the experience for us as a re-enactment of a historicaly interesting technique?
 
Last edited:
I think the likelihood of anyone alive being able to offer up secondhand (having actually spoken to an individual who's done this shooting in combat) information on the technique would not be possible/creditable. I don't know that the volley sights were ever even used in WW1, or the Boar War for that matter. Fact of the matter is, some bureaucrat or romantic stuffed shirt privileged military aristocrat (mouthful) had a hand in implementing the volley sights.
The intended use is almost like a throw back to the battles of English/Welsh longbow victories of the middle ages in Britain and France. The reality is that actual small arms engagement distances hasn't changed much since the days of the longbow Laugh2 and at times in modern history much, much closer.

I seem to recall that the British armorers were removing the sights (or elements of them) as early as 1915/16. (not only weren't they using them, they were useless. Any trajectory shooting was reserved for artillery which was much more effective than a bunch of wind blown .303 bullets)

Having said all that, I would pay some money to witness or participate (even better) in what R.N. is proposing. The mind races to understand the time delay involved in delivering 500 rounds 2500 yards away? How many rounds could 500 riflemen have in the air, inbound, before the initial rounds start raining down?
 
I am not sure how much there is to your comments about wind blown bullets. I read somewhere that the Vickers heavy machine gun had an effective range of 4100 metres. The concept of grazing fire was known in WWI. The US Quad 50 was used for anti personnel in Korea at extremely long ranges. So long, that new gunnery tables had to be made. But there is no comparison between rifles and machine guns is there?

Can someone say whether ammunition intended for the Vickers heavy machine gun was loaded hotter than ammunition for the SMLE? To my mind, the idea was not for individual sniper fire at long ranges, nor do I think the idea was for the service rifle to replace heavy artillery. I will take you at your word that the volley sights were being removed, but it would be nice to have a reference.

I have not seen many pre WWI SMLE rifles, or early WWI SMLE rifles for that matter. Most of the SMLE rifles I have ever seen were from late in WWI. Never seen any interwar ones, and most of the time when I hear of, or see a WWII SMLE it is a Lithgow, which obviously does not have volley sights.

Machine gun fire was regularly used to 'thicken' artillery barrages when troops of The Canadian Corps were attacking the enemy in WWI.

It would be interesting to experiment with this idea, but the logistics required would probably make it impossible to do.

related thread with broadsides (pun intended) :p

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69022&hl=Volley+sights

It appears to be more of a holdover :d from the 19th century than something suitable for trench warfare.
 
Last edited:
In the 2nd Boer war at the siege of Paardeberg a Boer artillery battery about 2000 yards away was forced to retire after being shot at by Long Lees using the long range sights.
 
green said:
In the 2nd Boer war at the siege of Paardeberg a Boer artillery battery about 2000 yards away was forced to retire after being shot at by Long Lees using the long range sights.
Click to expand...

Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Any details? How many riflemen fired on the battery? I'm assuming that the gun crews started to take casualties hence the retreat, so there were either a lot of targets or a high concentration of fire from the riflemen.

@ Toni Re: Vickers/Lewis ammo; Where's Buff Dog or Smellie when you need them :(? My understanding is that there was .303 that was designated for machine gun use (particularly for the air corps) and it was marked as such. However, I'm uncertain that it was loaded with more cordite (hotter) than standard rifle rounds, or it was made under closer scrutiny/higher tolerances to mitigate the jamming of the actions on the Vickers and Lewis guns.
 
plinker 777 said:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Any details? How many riflemen fired on the battery? I'm assuming that the gun crews started to take casualties hence the retreat, so there were either a lot of targets or a high concentration of fire from the riflemen.

@ Toni Re: Vickers/Lewis ammo; Where's Buff Dog or Smellie when you need them :(? My understanding is that there was .303 that was designated for machine gun use (particularly for the air corps) and it was marked as such. However, I'm uncertain that it was loaded with more cordite (hotter) than standard rifle rounds, or it was made under closer scrutiny/higher tolerances to mitigate the jamming of the actions on the Vickers and Lewis guns.
Click to expand...

mk8 ball was machine gun ammo and only to be used in machineguns some say it was slightly hotter.

id love to take part in what RN is talking about I don't think anyone has done a mass volley fire in 100 years the sights on most martini henrys were intended for volley fire past 100 yards
 
plinker 777 said:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Any details? How many riflemen fired on the battery? I'm assuming that the gun crews started to take casualties hence the retreat, so there were either a lot of targets or a high concentration of fire from the riflemen.

@ Toni Re: Vickers/Lewis ammo; Where's Buff Dog or Smellie when you need them :(? My understanding is that there was .303 that was designated for machine gun use (particularly for the air corps) and it was marked as such. However, I'm uncertain that it was loaded with more cordite (hotter) than standard rifle rounds, or it was made under closer scrutiny/higher tolerances to mitigate the jamming of the actions on the Vickers and Lewis guns.
Click to expand...

At 2000 yards would they even be on to the volley sights yet? The main sight on my 1916 Lithgow goes up to 2000 if I'm not mistaken.... Mine still has the original stock and volley disk. I'm missing the arm/pointer and associated screws and washers still, though I have tracked down the rear peep that attaches on the screw for the safety lever. I'd looked into a reproduction replacement, but found out the screw has a different thread pitch and won't install onto an original disk. Which is marked out to 2800 yards IIRC.....
As for ammunition, the Mk. VII and Mk. VIII ammunition didn't come out until after WWI I thought? You'll recall the tale of the British seizing the better quality Canadian rifle ammunition for use by their machine gun regiments and sticking the Canucks with out of spec English production that led to much of the Ross rifle's jamming issues...
 
...someone may need to correct me, but I believe in that time period painted projectiles would have been the identifier (aside from packaging markings). Black= AP, Red=MG, Green=? Banded colours= ?
I'm aware that initially, troops discovered that by pulling flat base projectiles and reversing them in the case was effective against the armor of the day, but shortly thereafter Armor Piercing rounds were produced...my memory is fuzzy as to the time period of the painting, and how they were colour coded, but Smellie, or Buff Dog's posts would reveal the knowledge we seek. I'm almost certain my limited understanding on the subject came from one or both of them.

If we had the benefit of a colour photo of a Lewis drum (open) or Vickers belt during the time period (1917 on ward?) we would be able to answer the question for ourselves...but that is highly unlikely;)
 
My P14s volley sights start at 1500m. Originally they were intended to be used similarly to arty. Remember when WWI began, most people didn't have a clue as to what a machine gun would be used for, many countries considered it next to useless when planning there strategies. It is easy to look back with a modern perspective of war, but when WWI began most wars beforehand had used these techniques to great effect.

Look at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 for example to see the effect of Machine Guns and volley fire. 8000 men (mostly armed with spears and a few rifles) started to advance on the British, and never closer than 50m before they were all killed. The British had there Lee Metfords, and early Long Lees at this point.

In regards to the ammo used, it doesn't need to be the hotter ammo (at this point Mk. 8 ammo didn't exist anyways), as long as your sights are calibrated correctly. You could have the trajectory of a rainbow, but provided your sights are correctly aligned and calculated you will hit your target if you do your part. Using hotter ammo with volley sights would probally give a worse result, because the sights were not calibrated for that type of ammo. Might not matter too much at 100m, but at 1500m it does make a big difference.

This was not intended to be sniper fire, rather a large group of people shooting at a large range within a certain 'beaten zone'. This can force the enemy to move, dig in or retreat. You can also ignore certain types of cover that is effective against conventional fire, i.e. if your enemy is over a hill 2km away you can still hit him if the trajectory is correct.

We still have the ability to volley fire Machine Guns in the Canadian Forces, if you mount the C6 up to the support fire kit. It then gets used similar to a mortar (though not as effective).

The biggest reason for them to remove the volley sights was the fact they took time to make, and for the type of war WWI was it wasn't needed. Also most people that were trained on them being killed pretty early on, really helps get rid of there usage.
 
sail32 said:
Lee-Enfield volley sights

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=679
Click to expand...

Beware the info in this, the LESIII is not the numerical successor to the LES2 the LESIII is graduated for MkVI & not MkVII ammo & is the sight fitted to the MkIII, it is marked LES the same as the sight fitted to the Mk1 SMLE it is not stamped actually stamped LESIII but LES with a III stamped elsewhere.

LES for the Mk1 SMLE sighted for MkVI
LES with with III stamped on it, for the MkIII sighted for MkVI
LES2 for all SMLEs sighted for MkVII.
 
Someone with a volley sight equipped rifle will have to confirm this for me. My understanding is that the volley sights were set up such that the rifle was still fireable from the shoulder with the volley sights in use. If you put the leaf sight on an SMLE at the 2000 yard setting, you might not be able to fire it from the shoulder from the prone position. My assumption is that you would only be firing the rifle from the prone position while using the volley sights.

Try adopting the prone position & set the leaf sight on an SMLE to 2000 yards. Now imagine you are in a war on the open plains somewhere in the early 20th century, within range of enemy artillery. Will you be sticking your head up awkwardly while shooting the rifle in an uncomfortable position?
 
Last edited:
plinker 777 said:
^ I don't think they were trained to use these sights prone. More likely either in a crouch/seated or standing. (The enemy is 2000 yards or better away, no need to cover)
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good points and questions raised in this thread. It sure would be nice to have definite answers to these things.
I no longer think a video would be enough to satisfy my curiosity, something more is needed.:confused:
 
fat tony said:
Someone with a volley sight equipped rifle will have to confirm this for me. My understanding is that the volley sights were set up such that the rifle was still fireable from the shoulder with the volley sights in use. If you put the leaf sight on an SMLE at the 2000 yard setting, you might not be able to fire it from the shoulder from the prone position. My assumption is that you would only be firing the rifle from the prone position while using the volley sights.

Try adopting the prone position & set the leaf sight on an SMLE to 2000 yards. Now imagine you are in a war on the open plains somewhere in the early 20th century, within range of enemy artillery. Will you be sticking your head up awkwardly while shooting the rifle in an uncomfortable position?
Click to expand...

The volley sights can be used from the shoulder, much more comfortably than the standard rear sight. When I envision soldiers giving volley fire, I envision a platoon lined up 3 ranks deep either with all them firing at the prescribed distance at the same time, or the first rank firing followed by kneeling and reloading (as the magazine cut-off would be on), second rank firing after the first rank, then kneeling and reloading, and third rank firing then kneeling and reloading, followed by the first rank firing kneeling and reloading etc. I am not sure if that was the standard that was expected but it is what I envision based on the mentalities of the time (officers strongly controlling rate of fire and range, group barrages, preference to formations, usage of the magazine cut-off to conserve ammo).

I am definitely interested however to learn what the actual expected standard was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom