Volley fire vs aimed fire

[KennethB]

Hi all,

After watching the mad minute video(s) I have a question on the use of the volley sight.

Could one of our arms experts please explain what is the difference between volley fire and aimed fire and why one would be used over another on a battlefield.

Thanks,

Ken

[Thunderbox]

The normal iron sights were supposed to reflect the individual soldier's ability to identify and aim at a human target (although 2,000 yards is pushing it it a bit for accurate aimed fire; I guess soldiers in those days were recruited from hawk-eyed country boys...). E.g. at the Battle of Omdurman, the British (but not native) infantry commenced effective aimed fire at about 1,600 yards (with the black powder MkII .303 round).

Over about 1,800 - 2,000 yards, it was recognised that soldiers could not be expected to deliver aimed fire at individual targets. The .303 round, however, in both black powder and cordite versions, was known to be lethal at ranges past 3,500 yards. Consequently, experiments were carried out in how to utilise this long-range part of the bullet's performance. The auxiliary or volley sight was conceived, with the idea that a large group of men - an infantry company or battalion - could be ordered to aim and fire at a body of enemy troops at visible feature on the ground, eg a building, hill or woodline. The resulting density of fire, even though not accurately aimed by individual shot, would have a "target effect". They actually tested it by using an infantry company to engage house-size targets at Hythe. I guess they basically marched the soldiers back in range increments, and then examines the target after each volley. It was ascertained that, although the round had a killing range of 3,500+ yards, the density of falling rounds was only really effective at 2,600 yards for black powder and 2,800 yards for cordite - the rounds became too dispersed at longer ranges to unduly bother an enemy. Hence the calibrated ranges on the volley sights.

Use of volley sights is not really discussed in small arms pamphlets, but it would have been utilised through a company officer/ snco giving fire orders to include the range, target and method of fire. Presumably, the method of fire would have been of "volley" nature - ie the officer would shout something like ; "ten rounds, rapid - FIRE" - the intention being to get the initial 150+ rounds arriving out of the sky unannounced and hence most effectively. The same principle is used in all types of modern artillery and other fire, in order to achieve the most damage before the enemy can take cover or disperse. With the advent of machine guns to provide the same long-range "target effect", the volley sight became superfluous.

[apple]

Volley fire is when several people fire at the same time. Think Napoleonic Wars/ American Civil War. The company would all aim their muskets and fire, a volley, at the same time. Then there would be a big, black cloud of smoke in front of the company. But, the cloud didn't really matter as it took them a while to reload and by then the cloud should have dissipated and they could aim at the enemy and fire a new volley.

The terms; volley fire and aimed fire, aren't mutually exclusive.

The volley sights were fitted to pre Great War rifles as the .303 round is lethal at a very long range. At, say a mile, a .303 could still kill. But, if you aimed a Lee-Enfield at a target a mile away, sighting along the barrel, the bullet would hit the ground well before it had travelled a mile. The "volley sights" on those rifles were very inaccurate. But, they provided the rifleman a general guide as to how high they'd need to "aim into the sky" for the bullet to get relatively near a distance target.

Volley sights were designed for long range shooting by a large group of riflemen. If 100 riflemen, using volley sights, fired at 100 enemy target, which were a mile distant, some of those 100 shots would hit.

Maybe the volley sights were used in 1914, before the trenches became established. But, once everyone was dug-in they were pretty much useless

Perhaps some one else would like to explain; beaten zones and MG's?

Good answer Thunderbox... SNAP

[Pete1052]

The beaten zone is where the majority of bullets will land when a weapon is fired at a specified range. It's sort of like plunging fire, it's where the bullets go down and hit the ground.

[centurion]

Need to distinguish between volley fire indifferent periods of military history. In the flint and musket days the smooth bore musket was usually not accurate at much more that 60 yards if that. Originally a scheme of platoon, section , or squad firing was introduced to most European armies with three ranks taking turn to load and fire in volleys. By the end of the 1700s the British army(and the various British Indian armies) being professional rather than conscript (and with more time to train) had a much faster rate of reloading and adopted tactics of two ranks with sometines the whole rank firing. This achieved more guns firing at the enemy at any one time and was first used by troops under Eyre Coote in India against French columns with great success and was generally adopted by the British army. The whole emphasis was on rate of fire rather than individual accuracy (and with the smoke generated accuracy was not easy whatever the weapon and troops blazed away into the brown). The ultimate example of the effect was demonstrated when an American infantry Battalion attacked what their commander thought was 'easy meat, of Canadian militia men who turned out to be one of Wellington's crack regiments newly arrived from Spain and capable of reaching 6 rounds a minute for a short time. The US battalion ceased to be a coherent fighting force within 90 seconds.

With the advent of the magazine rifle in the 1880s and later the introduction of smokeless powder the picture changed, for the British army at least, and the aim of the Hythe school of musketry was to get as high a rate of aimed fire as possible (hence the 'mad minute'. The maximum practical range appears to have been regarded as 800yds. Volley fire seems to have been used as the early equivalent of the machine gun barrage, where the enemy might not even be visible being hidden by rises in the ground. When adequate supplies of machine guns became available it seems to have fallen into abeyance (although I have seen an account of it being used in WW2 by Indian troops against the Japanese when the latter were advancing under cover of Jungle foliage)

BTW many of the hawkeyed soldiers were townees (where the majority of the British population lived by 1914)

[MikB]

It only needs very basic trigonometry to see that the volley sights fitted to rifles were pretty much valueless. At 2700 yards they point the rifle upward at about 11 degrees, so the angle of descent of the bullet would be around 15 degrees. At that angle, the bullet will descend by the height of a man - ie. make the difference between a miss high and a miss low - in less than 10 yards horizontal travel. That means that rangefinding of unprecedented precision would be needed to have any effect at all - the most likely result being that the enemy would not even realise they were under attack unless many thousands of rounds were fired.

Add to that the 2-minute accuracy of the typical rifle, the fact that the volley sights were attached to the woodwork of the rifle, which could move by quite a few thou due to temperature and humidity variations, and the natural variation of even an ice-cool, hawkeyed infantryman engaging human-sized targets at such a distance, and... well, it's no surprise that when the opportunity for long-range engagements arose again in the WW2 desert campaigns, nobody seems to've attempted to revive volley sights as a standard fitting.

Regards,

MikB

[Thunderbox]

It only needs very basic trigonometry to see that the volley sights fitted to rifles were pretty much valueless. At 2700 yards they point the rifle upward at about 11 degrees, so the angle of descent of the bullet would be around 15 degrees. At that angle, the bullet will descend by the height of a man - ie. make the difference between a miss high and a miss low - in less than 10 yards horizontal travel. That means that rangefinding of unprecedented precision would be needed to have any effect at all - the most likely result being that the enemy would not even realise they were under attack unless many thousands of rounds were fired.

Add to that the 2-minute accuracy of the typical rifle, the fact that the volley sights were attached to the woodwork of the rifle, which could move by quite a few thou due to temperature and humidity variations, and the natural variation of even an ice-cool, hawkeyed infantryman engaging human-sized targets at such a distance, and... well, it's no surprise that when the opportunity for long-range engagements arose again in the WW2 desert campaigns, nobody seems to've attempted to revive volley sights as a standard fitting.

Regards,

MikB

The sights were intended to be used by at least a company of infantry standing in close proximity - perhaps off the line of march, for example; so thats c.2000 rounds at ten rounds rapid from a WW1-era British infantry company of some 220 men. If the firing company are in a compact unit, then the target effect corresponds fairly exactly to the beaten zone of a typical MG at the same range. Ergo, volley sights when used as intended were really no different from a single MG in an SF role. The Hythe experiments took into consideration the round density in the beaten zone, which is why only volley sight calibrations up to 2,800 yards were used. The same Hythe experiments eventually led to the understanding & development of Vickers indirect fire.

The tactical conditions of warfare in WW2 would mean that there could never be the concentration of c. 200 riflemen close enough together to achieve the weight of fire. In any case, why would they want to? By that stage they had a Bren or Vickers providing the same firepower as the old WW1-era infantry company.

[centurion]

It only needs very basic trigonometry to see that the volley sights fitted to rifles were pretty much valueless. At 2700 yards they point the rifle upward at about 11 degrees, so the angle of descent of the bullet would be around 15 degrees. At that angle, the bullet will descend by the height of a man - ie. make the difference between a miss high and a miss low - in less than 10 yards horizontal travel. That means that rangefinding of unprecedented precision would be needed to have any effect at all - the most likely result being that the enemy would not even realise they were under attack unless many thousands of rounds were fired.

Which was exactly the result of the machine gun barrage - no one was aiming at a particular target but were denying passage of a specific area to the enemy. The machine gun barrage was quite effective and killed a fair number. However the main purpose was denial "Thus indeed was the object of all our training, to keep the enemy's heads down was achieved with most valuable results". If you are trying to put down a lot of rounds in a general area who needs accurate range-finding? As I said as soon as adequate numbers of mg were available volley fire became a thing of the past butI believe that was its objective.

Even a second class shot could achieve 15 aimed rounds a minute and would be able to fire many more un aimed ones when firing in volley. A company of say 100 men might be able to put say 2,000 rounds a minute into a specific area for a while - it would make me unwilling to walk around in the open or advance up a road for example.

[Pete1052]

In a way the Infantry concept of the Beaten Zone is analogous to the Field Artillery definition of Probable Error.

[MikB]

There've been a couple of mentions of sustained fire from MGs being used in a suppressive role - but this really is very different from long-range volley rifle fire in 2 important respects.

Firstly, the machine guns would be set up in positions where the ammunition supply could be maintained for periods of hours at a time, whilst infantrymen on the march would be carrying maybe 120 rounds each - enough for 6 minutes at max rate, perhaps 10 or 12 minutes at a realistic rate. There can't have been very many circumstance where area denial for such a period, by troops who would afterwards be useless until their ammunition could be resupplied, would turn the course of a battle.

Secondly, even the employment of MGs in this role was reckoned to be most effective in indirect fire against enemy concentrations on reverse slopes. In some conditions it would be possible to produce a long dangerous space if the slope were anywhere near parallel to the mean descent angle of the bullet over the ranges to be covered. In this situation, trial firings with forward scouting and observation would be critical to determine fall of shot, and make sure first catch, first graze and beaten zone were in the right place to produce the desired effect. Apart from reference and repeatability, the MG sight wouldn't serve much purpose as the target couldn't generally be seen through them unless the hawkeyed soldier also had X-ray vision!

Without this forward observation, there would be scarcely any chance of troops with rifles having any knowledge at all of where their rounds were going at such distances. Even at 600 yards a bullet strike in dry sand on a rifle-range can be hard to spot and localise with the naked eye - at over 2000 the possibility can generally be discounted. The enemy would not hear the now-subsonic rounds passing overhead, and would generally not see the dispersed short strikes tens or hundreds of yards in the direction of the volley-firers. Very occasionally someone would be aware of a near miss and still more occasionally someone would be hit - but by the time anyone realised they were actually under fire, the volley riflemen would've finished their ammunition.

It seems clear to me that the volley sight was an overoptimistic design sold to a credulous military at a time when scientific and engineering wonders seemed to have no limits. It had a short service lifespan, after which it receded into obscurity. It may be argued that it was never tested properly - but that's because the circumstances in which it would be useful were so constrained.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

In this situation, trial firings with forward scouting and observation would be critical to determine fall of shot, and make sure first catch, first graze and beaten zone were in the right place to produce the desired effect.

In many (most, nearly all?) cases this was completely impractical and yet machine gun barrages were used in increasing intensity as the war progressed.

[Radlad]

Forgive me gentlemen, but i think the reply's are getting a little over complicated for the original question. All fire should be aimed unless it is generally directed as harrassing fire. A volley is simply a number of shots fired at the same time. To imply that volleys were not aimed would be incorrect. In smooth bore muzzle loading days they may have been 'pointed' but it amounts to the same thing as aiming

A beaten zone covered by an Mg is harrassing fire designed to frustrate the enemy by denying or making that ground unsafe to use . Direct observation is not needed , just a gunners range table.

[centurion]

From the War History Fans web site

"still current doctrine in Australian Army to classify effective ranges of SA weapons as effective range = x, section fire (or 'volley fire' in this context) = y where x is usually 300m and y = 600m.

Section fire is when all the weapons of a section (formerly 10 now 8 personnel) fire upon the area (which all that can be expected at ranges like 600m by the average person) with the expectation that the target will be suppressed"

[Radlad]

Section fire is a standard procedure in most armies drill book. It does not imply that all members fire at the same time as does the term 'Volley fire'

[centurion]

Section fire is a standard procedure in most armies drill book. It does not imply that all members fire at the same time as does the term 'Volley fire'

After you Bruce - no after you Bruce

Volley fire does not imply every one fires at the same time - never heard of a rolling volley?

[Radlad]

Indeed I have my good chap. That is a discription by some observers of the way volley's were delivered in the heat of a noisy battle in muzzle loading days. it was never a military official procedure to my knowledge. The first men to hear the fire order fired and the rest followed on, causing a ripple effect . it was not a deliberate policy, just a product of poor communications . Throats dried by powder fumes couldn't give orders very loudly. As the men would be looking to their fronts, the sword sweep often seen in films was actually a signal for an NCO to shout the order.

The word 'volley' does imply a multitude of shots fired together. a number of shots fired close together should be termed a 'fusilade'

Partly off topic.... But.

Many years ago I was told by a pre ww1 veteran of the campaigns on the NW frontier that they used Volley fire as a shotgun to try to suppress long range sniper fire or against animal baggage trains which were only of a few or even 1 animal. He said that long range sights were not carried very often personally and firing was done by observation and guesswork. By the time sights had been unpacked from the baggage animals, an incident could well be over. He also talked about rifle practice in the rest areas of the western front and said they often did short range snap shooting practice using empty wine bottles as targets. Weekly competitions were also sometimes held where the bottle held a small amount of money and whoever broke it kept the prize. Betting on the result took place and there was always great competition to win a little extra spending money.

[KennethB]

Gentlemen,

Great answers! Spot on what I was hoping for!

Thanks all,

Ken

[centurion]

Indeed I have my good chap. That is a discription by some observers of the way volley's were delivered in the heat of a noisy battle in muzzle loading days. it was never a military official procedure to my knowledge.

Tommyrot!

The rolling volley was a deliberate military manoeuvre first utilised at the Battle of Nagashino [1590] by Oda Nobunaga. It was developed in Europe first by Maurice of Orange and then Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. The British army took it to its peak as epitomised by Clinton's troops use of the technique at Salamanca. As used in this battle "smaller sections of the defensive line would fire in turn and the volleys would appear to go along the outstretched ranks - if the timing was right, the first section (usually the right flank) would be starting it's next volley before the left flank had finished the first, so that it appeared that the volleys were continuous." This took a lot of discipline and training to achieve in the smoke and noise of battle. The Confederates used the technique in the ACW. Today it remains in ceremonial - more as an artillery technique "The salute will take the form of a eulogy by our LG, a single shot from one of the PTA guns to start a minute's silence, followed by a rolling volley encompassing all the artillery and ending with the final shot from the 2nd PTA gun. Our infantry will salute as the rolling volley takes place."

[Radlad]

Interesting. I was thinking more of the smaller picture (platoon, company, battalion) and not whole armies. Thankyou. That's what I like about this forum. good educational healthy debate. I will accept the temporary name of Lady Astor.

The only modern version of the volley I can think of would be a firing squad.

[KennethB]

Taking this a slight bit further, since the MG has been mentioned above. The MG barrage, was it used to create a beaten zone with indirect fire? or was it more direct suppressing fire? And do you know roughly how many MGs (I'm assuming Vickers .303s) would be used?

Ken

[Thunderbox]

An MG creates a "beaten zone" at whichever range it fires at - albeit the shape changes with longer range. This beaten zone is either adjusted manually (e.g. observation, tracer, etc), or by prediction (from firing tables/sight graduations and map data).

[TonyE]

The value of the long range sights has been discussed at length before on the forum, and some of these points I may have made before, but might be worth repeating here.

The whole point about long range volley fire in the late nineteenth century when magazine rifles became available was that it was an area weapon. If it was used at battalion level a ten round volley would put out 10,000 rounds. That is the equivalent of a four gun Vickers section firing ten full belts each, and it only used ten rounds of each man’s ammunition supply.

I fully appreciate MikB’s points that the errors of range, individual’s aim, wind and ammunition variation would widen the beaten zone, but that was not necessarily a bad thing. With regard to his point about the angle of descent and range, since the fire was not aimed at individual targets the random fall of shot would have as much chance of a hit as a miss.

I think we can be agreed though that by the time of WWI the long range sights were an anachronism, which was why they were omitted when the SMLE Mark III* was introduced in late 1915. The fact that they were restored after WWI, particularly in India, was probably a mixture of military conservatism and potential usefulness against tribal insurgencies on the NW Frontier and in places like Iraq.

However, to judge their utility at the turn of the century we need to look for documentary evidence of their use. Fortunately we have that. In 1899 the War Office wished to ascertain the performance of magazine rifles in India and Egypt and sent a questionnaire to selected units and published the results as “Abstract of Reports on Magazine Rifles used in Operations in India and Egypt, 1897-98”.

Question 10 asked “Was long-range firing resorted to, and if so, with what results?” A selection of answers were:

1st Bn. Royal West Surrey

Yes, with good results, in so far that the fire of the enemy from inaccessible points, 1,800 or 2,000 yards distant was kept down by occasional shots from picked marksmen, and of larger parties by section volleys.

1st Bn. The Buffs

Nearly all fire was “long-range”. Volleys were kept up and as far as could be seen, with the eye and with glasses, with very good results. Enemy would not face the Lee-Metford. Maj. Gen. Bindon Blood says “Long-range volleys …had a most demoralizing effect.”

2nd. Bn. Royal Irish Rgt.

Yes; on the Semana. Results mostly satisfactory, physically and morally. Absence of smoke and extreme effective range materially affected formation and movements of enemy.

2nd, Bn. Yorkshire

Long-range fire frequently resorted to. ..Enemy in one case frequently dispersed by volleys at 1,600 yards, and the day after party completely dispersed at 1,400 yards.

1st Bn. Royal Scots Fusiliers

Long-range volleys resoted to on several occasions. Volleys well timed and accurate.

2nd. Bn. Royal Sussex

Nearly all long-range volleys even, up to 2,600 yards, which scattered enemy; it is evident that some of the bullets fell among them.

1st Bn. Dorsetshire

Yes, on several occasions. The wonderful accuracy of the long-range fire of the Lee-Metford was clearly shown by the shooting of the Afridis.

1st.Bn. Grenadier Guards

Yes. First volley at Omdurman was fired at 2,700 yards and fire maintained until Dervishes stopped at about 750 yards. Effects appeared excellent, but it is difficult to apportion them among guns, Maxims, and rifles.

There were some dissenting replies though.

2nd.Bn. Lancashire

A few section volleys at 1,900 yards. Results apparently nil.

1st.Bn. Northants

Very poor results. Enemy always presented a moving target, and not a large one.

Overall however the replies were very favourable, most stating that the minimum effect was to disperse the enemy and break up their concentrations. Also that the morale effect on the enemy was great in the face of volley fire.

Whatever we may think now, it seems that the sights were appreciated by troops at the time.

Regards

TonyE

[Old Tom]

Hello,

After all that we should have a 'feu de joi'. I read, a long time ago and have forgotten which book, that early in WW1 a company of the Hampshire Regt engaged a battery of field artillery at 1000 yds and caused it to withdraw. I also recall, right of topic, watching a brigade of infantry (6 Bde of the 2nd Div fire a feu de joi in Ger,many to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth.

Old Tom

[truthergw]

Interesting thread gents and I think most of the bases were covered, for me anyway. Just one point, I would like to make. The volley would not be used against a man, rather it would be used against a column. A volley fired at an approaching column more than a mile away would have all the accuracy required to cause a lot of damage. A company of men would expect to put about a thousand rounds into the column in a minute. Only shrapnel could hope to equal that.

[MikB]

A company of men would expect to put about a thousand rounds into the column in a minute. Only shrapnel could hope to equal that.

Three rounds of 18-pr shrapnel would do that, in a very much tighter and more predictable pattern, and in about 15 seconds or so. .

Regards,

MikB