- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was a M249 or 240B used?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:20 pm to ABearsFanNMS
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:20 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
The saving grace was that it was plunging fire. Could you imagine what grazing fire, with a tripod mounted M240, would have done?
At that range i don't think it qualifies as plunging fire, and the targets were well withing direct fire range, and the shooter had line of site. I think the elevation hurt the crowd, as virtually everyone was visible to the shooter instead of just the first and second "rank". At least how I understand it, plunging fire isn't simply shooting down at targets. It's using the downward trajectory of a bullet to drop it in on targets. He would be firing directly (or close enough to directly at) the targets in this situation.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:30 pm
1
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:23 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Ill google map search it. BRB Yeah, about 200-350 meters to the furthest end of the field.
I didn't think to do that, so thanks very much. 200 to 350 meters. Thanks for doing the work.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:23 pm to Champagne
quote:
I didn't think to do that, so thanks very much. 200 to 350 meters. Thanks for doing the work.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:24 pm to Buckeye Backer
Sad to think some sorry arse used these weapons to shoot at unarmed people.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:26 pm to MrCarton
Yes that is part of the definition of plunging fire where a highly trained machine gunner can do basically indirect fire like they did during trench warfare in WWI....it is also shooting down from an elevated position.
I would have to go break out the FM's but that diagram is basically right out of "Rise and Fall of the Emma Gee's" which is required reading for all USMC officers back in my day.
quote:
Plunging fire is gunfire directed upon an enemy from an elevated position, or gunfire aimed so as to fall on an enemy from above.
I would have to go break out the FM's but that diagram is basically right out of "Rise and Fall of the Emma Gee's" which is required reading for all USMC officers back in my day.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:32 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Yes that is part of the definition of plunging fire where a highly trained machine gunner can do basically indirect fire like they did during trench warfare in WWI....it is also shooting down from an elevated position.
I just found some images that show "plunging fire" as shooting directly at targets at a lower elevation. thanks for clearing that up for me
I always considered that to be direct fire, whereas plunging would be an indirect fire method used to get to enemies outside of LOS, or utilizing cover that would prohibit direct fire. Either way, I love the art of machine gunning and I think it is terrible that we are having to analyze it under these circumstances.
Edit: Yep, that's the one. I'm pretty sure that's in the handbook too. must have skipped class that day
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:34 pm to MrCarton
That did not sound like some dude at the range with a bump fire, that sounded like some large calibre belt fed machine gun.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:36 pm to ninthward
quote:
That did not sound like some dude at the range with a bump fire,
I posted about 5 videos of people shooting bump fires on an M4 in another thread. they work very well when tweaked correctly.
I didn't sound like 7.62 to me, but then again, it was cell phone video from twitter. I wouldn't bet on knowing the caliber/weapon.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:36 pm to MrCarton
No worries...I had several Wpns Plts.....believe it or not I was actually really into indirect fire with MGs since my real forte was 61mm & 81mm mortars. Plus I was Hell on wheels in laying the MGs in the defense. Always made the ammo man walk the line to ensure we had grazing fire and it pissed my Marines off.
Look up the "Rise and Fall...." (I believe that is the name of the article) it is good reading on what they did with MGs in WWI.
Look up the "Rise and Fall...." (I believe that is the name of the article) it is good reading on what they did with MGs in WWI.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:37 pm to ABearsFanNMS
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:40 pm to MrCarton
That brings back some memories
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:43 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
No worries...I had several Wpns Plts.....believe it or not I was actually really into indirect fire with MGs since my real forte was 61mm & 81mm mortars.
Good stuff. I've never used an MG as an indirect fire weapon on the battlefield, at least not effectively, but then again we don't typically move in large formations against large formations, so synchronizing numerous MGs against enemy position in that manner just isn't that common. It just doesn't have the same effect when you only implement a few MGs.
For most indirect fire situations, we used air support and or Mortars. Plunging MGs is still a fantastic method, and given the amount of ammo we had to shoot and the terrain we had to train on, we did drag our shite out to the mountains and practice all kinds of different methods. MGs are the heart and soul of small unit tactics, and It's probably the only thing that I always enjoyed doing on deployments.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:44 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
That brings back some memories
I absolutely loved it For all the artistry that being an effective MGer requires, I loved the close quarters quick draw gunning in urban areas and tight terrain the most. Something about that style of shooting can make my heart rate speed up just sitting here at the computer.
I'm not knocking the longer range stuff either. shutting down an avenue of approach with a dialed in MG is just as glorious, just not as thrilling.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:56 pm to MrCarton
quote:
I'm not knocking the longer range stuff either. shutting down an avenue of approach with a dialed in MG is just as glorious, just not as thrilling.
Nothing better than 2 MG squads doing talking guns with enfilade grazing fire!
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:25 pm to ABearsFanNMS
A question just came to mind that I've always wanted to ask a Weapons Plt commander. Isn't there almost always a risk of your Co. commander breaking down your unit and parceling out your sections for the Rifle Platoons to use? I assume this same problem also applies to a Wpns Co. commander.
How does this work in practice when you'd rather have your entire Weapons platoon under your command and control?
How does this work in practice when you'd rather have your entire Weapons platoon under your command and control?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:34 pm to Champagne
quote:
A question just came to mind that I've always wanted to ask a Weapons Plt commander. Isn't there almost always a risk of your Co. commander breaking down your unit and parceling out your sections for the Rifle Platoons to use? I assume this same problem also applies to a Wpns Co. commander.
Not to interrupt too badly:
Most of the weapons platoons that I worked with in OIF OEF were divvied out to the other platoons and provided their heavy weapons for that platoon's commander. A far more integrated approach than the old-school army intended for them. given how spread out units were over the AO, it made no sense to leave those joes under a centralized commander in a specialized platoon.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:42 pm to MrCarton
So the Wpns Plt leader is left with a few 60mm mortars to command? Ouch.
But I understand the necessity. I'm fairly sure that your solution was implemented as far back as the beginning of WW2 for the US forces. I guess that the Wpns Plt leader must accept that it will happen.
But I understand the necessity. I'm fairly sure that your solution was implemented as far back as the beginning of WW2 for the US forces. I guess that the Wpns Plt leader must accept that it will happen.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:48 pm to Champagne
quote:
So the Wpns Plt leader is left with a few 60mm mortars to command? Ouch.
haha, well they just have more line platoons is all. So how it all shakes out (from what I recall) is that heavy weapons company (D Co usually) has all the heavy weapons, and they divvy them out among the BN and D co keeps some for it's own platoons. Then post deployment, they all come back home to D co for training/refit.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:49 pm to Champagne
hoping Abuthemonkey jumps in here, he has more experience with infantry line formations in OIF/OEF than I do. He will probably remember the deets.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 10:52 pm to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
Most the time that is the case with the MGs and Assaultman. They are usually attached to the rifle platoons unless we needed them massed for a BOF. This was actually a good thing because I was busy dealing with the mortar section and coordinating all indirect fire as the Co FST Leader. There were times I had 61 FO, 81 FO, Arty FOs and a FAC in my little party with their own radios to listen to.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 10:57 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News