Volley sighs & shooting

[Eaglelord17]

Large groups performing the mad minute at extreme trajectories is how I envision it being performed. Saturation would be the goal I would think.

The mad minute wouldn't have even been practiced when this technique was developed. The Long Lees and such never had the provisions for the chargers until they were upgraded later on. At this point they had a the ammo loose in pouches, and would have the magazine cut-off on at all times unless there was a immediate threat that required a quick burst of firepower (short range combat). They basically used the magazine fed rifles as single shots for the first while.

 

[enefgee]

Wasn't there a guy in Afghanistan caught firing on a post using volley sights from an old LE. Heavy machine gunners still learn firing into enfilade, don't they? It's the same concept only using what was available at the time.

 

[fat tony]

Its handy to remember that machine guns were not very common in the British Army before WWI.

 

[kennymo]

Wasn't there a guy in Afghanistan caught firing on a post using volley sights from an old LE. Heavy machine gunners still learn firing into enfilade, don't they? It's the same concept only using what was available at the time.

There was a fellow who engaged some Americans, eventually wounding one of them. I don't think it was at volley range though, five or six hundred yards (still somewhat impressive). He'd managed to keep them pinned for some time, out of effective range of their M4's and 7.62 SAW. I think they gave him the old air strike in the end, though I'm not certain.... I thought it might've been a No.4 LE.....but I can't recall for certain.

 

[tacfoley]

Volley sights were employed when it was worth the ammunition expenditure to do so.

Volley firing was undertaken in company-sized units up to regimental units of the British and colonial armies in the days of the Snider as well as the Martini-Enfileds and later -Henry rifles - a company was around 120 soldiers plus a few officers, and there were usually three rifle companies to a battalion plus the HQ battalion, so getting the wrong end of six rounds a minute [Sniders] and twelve rounds a minute [M-H], even from a solitary rifle company, could be very unhealthy indeed - 1440+ rounds on your location...

During the Mahdist wars, one British colonel i/c an Egyptian colonial regiment armed with Sniders really knew his stuff and waited until the fuzzy-wuzzies were in the entire beaten zone before the whole regiment opened up on them in a four battalion volley - that's around 650 men x four x 12 rounds per minute per battalion in rolling fire. That's 15600 rounds per minute.... The FW lost around 8000 casualties - mostly dead - in less than five minutes, having been caught at the 'first catch' and 'last catch' and everything in between in a two hundred yard deep beaten zone. The colonial army is reported to have suffered less than forty casualties in total.

tac

 

[tacfoley]

^Yes, we must remember that machine guns were not very common in the British Army before WWI.

Not so, Sir - The first unit in the world to receive the Maxim was the Singapore Volunteer Corps in 1889. This was a civilian volunteer defence unit on the then-British island.

The Maxim gun was first used by Britain's colonial forces in the 1893–1894 First Matabele War in Rhodesia. During the Battle of the Shangani, 700 soldiers fought off 5,000 warriors with just four Maxim guns.

Add to that the one and two-pounder QF guns on wheeled carriages, as well as other QF cannon and Gardner machine-guns usually mounted on river/gunboats and you'll see that the British seemed to be convinced of the efficacy of ANY kind of quick-fire gun. It's a very great pity that less than twenty years later all these lessons had to be re-learnt in Western France.

tac

 

[fat tony]

Do you have any stats on the # of Maxims in use in the era you are talking about? I will be cowed to your satisfaction should you have information that clotheslines my presumption.

My light skimming of the topic: "use of machineguns by British people before WWI" points to the attitude that such weapons were seen as fit for use against 'uncivilized' heathens. Civilized Europeans (?) would qualify for the honourable bullet with their name on it so to speak.

 

[tacfoley]

Without access to any of my books, this is abut all that I can find so far -

The First Matabele War was the first wartime use of a Maxim gun by Britain and it proved to have a decisive impact. In less than optimal situations, such as hilly or mountainous terrain or dense vegetation with poor lines of sight, the Maxim gun resulted in little direct impact on enemy deaths. But as a psychological weapon, the Maxim gun was truly phenomenal. It generated a sense of fear in the Ndebele and made the British South Africa Police seem invincible. In one engagement, for example, 50 company soldiers with just four Maxim guns fought off 5,000 Ndebele warriors.

So at least four were in use in that particular war.

There was rather more in in the Second Boer War, including use of the Colt potato-digger, as you can read here - http://www.bwm.org.au/site/Machine_Guns.asp

Not trying in any way to put you down or belittle your input - that's not my style. I'm here to learn, just like most folks.

tac

 

[sail32]

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

Hilaire Belloc; The Modern Traveller (1898)

 

[fat tony]

Thanks.

 

[green]

Ah yes , volley sights, or as the British and Empire armies insisted in designating them "Long Range Sights".
Volley sights is a recently introduced term like "stripper clips" when referring to chargers.

 

[fat tony]

Confusing. I heard the term dial sight was used.

 

[Robert Nicholson]

Do you have any stats on the # of Maxims in use in the era you are talking about? I will be cowed to your satisfaction should you have information that clotheslines my presumption.

My light skimming of the topic: "use of machineguns by British people before WWI" points to the attitude that such weapons were seen as fit for use against 'uncivilized' heathens. Civilized Europeans (?) would qualify for the honourable bullet with their name on it so to speak.

That is an interesting insight into the early behaviour of the British and Russians during WWI! I often wondered why they seemed to behave as if the machine gun did not exist. They may have been firmly convinced that the only civilized way to fight in Europe, was with set piece battles and Germany would eventually follow suit if given the proper example? Or perhaps it was a matter of placing a low value on working class life?

 

[Eaglelord17]

That is an interesting insight into the early behaviour of the British and Russians during WWI! I often wondered why they seemed to behave as if the machine gun did not exist. They may have been firmly convinced that the only civilized way to fight in Europe, was with set piece battles and Germany would eventually follow suit if given the proper example? Or perhaps it was a matter of placing a low value on working class life?

All nations followed old Napoleanic/Franco-Prussian style doctrine when the war broke out. France for example believed they could advance 50m in 20 seconds well only being shot at once by the enemy (this was there doctrine). This completely ignored the fact bolt action rifles existed let alone machine guns. It also resulted in the highest casualties inflicted in WWI in a single day on a single nation (28,000 soldiers).

Simply put, they ignored the machine gun because it didn't fit within there romantic notion of war (great cavalry charges, square formations, firing by rank, etc.). Many British officers who served in the colonies with machine guns had a great amount of respect for the machine gun, but when they spoke of it in good terms they would be more or less looked down upon by the 'old boys club' as they were just 'colonial' officers who knew nothing about the 'realities' of war. At this point in time there was a serious class divide within most major nations, and a fair bit of your position was based on family prestige (look at someone like Conrad von Hotzendorf to show incompetence and a serious lack of skill for a good example. This man is also the person who could have the most blame placed on them for WWI starting). The fact most people who were in charge had never actually fought in a war doesn't help either.

 

[kjohn]

Here's a few shots of my 1897 Navy .22 trainer, which still retains its volley sights.

View attachment 38253View attachment 38254View attachment 38255View attachment 38256View attachment 38258

 

[fat tony]

Would be fun to calibrate the volley sights with .22 ammo! I guess she is far to valuable to shoot thousands of rounds through.

 

[Juster]

There are some WWI collective fire drills here:

"Imperial Army Series, Musketry (.303 and .22 cartridges)" by Cpt. E. J. Solano. 1915 London
https://archive.org/details/musketry30322car00sola

Collective Field Practices.
No. 1.

Object : To practise section commanders in applying collective
fire from observation.

Rounds: 10 per man.

Targets : 8 iron falling-plates 1 yard apart, in two groups of
four, on the stop-butt.

Distance : Unknown — about 850 yards.

Method : A section (12 firers) is formed up in rear of the
800 yards' firing-point. Rifles to be unloaded and at safe till
warning, " Commence," 3 minutes after which fire will cease.

Notes. — Method of ranging and correction. Point of aim
given. Fire orders.

 

[Robert Nicholson]

There are some WWI collective fire drills here:

"Imperial Army Series, Musketry (.303 and .22 cartridges)" by Cpt. E. J. Solano. 1915 London
https://archive.org/details/musketry30322car00sola

Collective Field Practices.
No. 1.

Object : To practise section commanders in applying collective
fire from observation.

Rounds: 10 per man.

Targets : 8 iron falling-plates 1 yard apart, in two groups of
four, on the stop-butt.

Distance : Unknown — about 850 yards.

Method : A section (12 firers) is formed up in rear of the
800 yards' firing-point. Rifles to be unloaded and at safe till
warning, " Commence," 3 minutes after which fire will cease.

Notes. — Method of ranging and correction. Point of aim
given. Fire orders.

Nice! What are iron falling-plate targets? Would the shooters have independently fired as rapidly as they could during the three minutes?

 

[fat tony]

Eight hundred and fifty yards? Is this with the leaf sight or the auxilliary sights?

Thanks for posting the link.

I did not see anything in the glossary that explains 'combined sights'.

 

[GrantR]

I have been checking some of my reference material but have yet to find any detailed/specific description of the British Army method of using the volley sights. I will keep looking ....

In the meantime, I did locate this passage in H. T. Fremantle's "The Book of the Rifle" (1901) which does give a good summary of the gist of the above posts - i.e. these sights were not intended for individual targets at those extreme ranges, but rather for mass firing into a "beaten zone" (highighted in red).

There is a nice plate/engraving illustrating the volley sights of the "Long Lee" ....

Title page -

I love shooting my MLE and MLM .... they are such "elegant" rifles.
And one must dress the part, of course .... ....