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

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?:confused:

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?

Yep.

I believe that you have been misinformed.

TR

By a Field Artillery 1st Lieutenant, and two prior service too...:eek:

Oh wow... LOL (Lieutenant was busting my balls in another forum for me asking "Why is the M240 and M2 considered indirect fire" as well... wow... LOL The 1st Lieutenant was the one saying the M240 and M2 are indirect fire and I was asking him why)

All bullets "arch"
 

All of these are direct fire. Not that you can't do "plunging" fire. Plunging fire is done with a direct fire weapon, but will normally be beyoud the max effective range of the round. ie. Ma duece out beyound 2500 meters, if you knew the right elevation you could "lobb" rounds in on troops over 4000 meters. You wouldn't get much feed back at that range but would likely get some heads down.

All of the a fore mentioned weapons fire center fire cartridges and are aimed...thus direct fire weapons.

Okay "plunging fire can be done but isn't the primary function.. Mortars are indirect fire. Blitz

Thank you Blitz...

If only the Army taught Artillery Officers (Chem Officer branched Artillery) this kind of info...

On another forum I have a 1LT and two prior service dogging me for asking why they are saying the M240 and M2 are "Indirect Fire" as the 1LT said they were...

Thank you for the correct information, I appreciate it.

I'm not going to start an argument with info given to me on here, just going to leave it be on other forums, I just care about having the correct info for myself alone.

There is a mathmatical formula involed and you need a gunners quadrant.(I've only seen one once)

it's becoming a lost art.
From what I understand it was used extensively during the Korean War.

What?

You mean they didn't do much of that during Vietnam?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I recall it being mentioned, but not directly taught, by the machine gun range cadre when I went through IOBC. It involves the use of the tripod and forward observer, and is used when the gun crew is in full defilade.

Yep, just checked an on-line version of what used to be FM 23-65, and para. 6.6 discusses defilade fire, where the gunner can't see the target and requires the assistance of an observer. As Blitzz mentioned, its referred to as plunging fire, not indirect fire.

Manuals from WWI timeframe have extensive coverage of machine guns utilizing plunging fire. Massed, plunging fire. walking ahead of infantry. I remember thumbing through one at the Infantry School some time back. A google search also turns up quite a few references to MG's being used in this way during WWI

We were taught this in AIT at Ft. Ord in '68. It may have been because Ord was a bit lumpy and lent itself to that type of training. I thought it was called "raining fire" but I'm not sure.

More than likely the chatter of the Deuce would have been enough to keep the BG's heads down.

Pat

I saw one reference that discussed massed heavy machine gun fire being used in front of walking artillery barrages to attempt to catch enemy troops in the open as they unassed front-lline trenches in order to get out from under the worst of it. Also discussed using same in the interdiction role to prevent reinforcement and/or resupply of front line trenches. The below website has some histoical info on the British Machinegun Corps of WWI and references these tactics.

http://www.1914-1918.net/mgc.htm

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,,,,,

During the weapons course we were taught Plunging fire and taught the Gunners quadrant. They are rare but we did training on the range with one part of the class as FO's and they rest of us a gunners with the M2. We also used plotting boards to plot the fire for the M2's. It was amazing all the things that they crammed into the training and ranges.

Direct fire is LOS (line of sight), indirect is non-LOS. FA & mortars in direct lay are just as much "direct fire" as a rifle is. MGs in indirect fire haven't been much more than an academic footnote since WWI. abc_123 hits the nail on the head. (Not bad for an "O". :p)

I think the issue is the amount of massing that would need to take place, and the mountain of ammo that would take. The lack of true Lightweight MGs (or tactical fighting vehicles to carry the heavy MGs) made this the only way to employ heavy MGs in the offensive role. Not to mention that the geometry of the battlefield of WWI is what allowed this technique to have whaterver degree of effectiveness that it did.

Not sure how effective it was (google anyone??) but this technique was referenced as being used as late as 1917...

In mobile warfare... it is far more effective (and supportable) for MGs to be dispersed throughout maneuvering units rather than consolidated into companies and battalions.