Firing an SMLE From the Hip

[PhilB]

Todger Jones, a skilled marksman, reckoned that firing his SMLE from the hip was instrumental in enabling him to accomplish his VC winning feat. I`ve never known this style to be taught but it seems to have been a valuable skill for WW1 infantry. What was the official attitude towards it? (Or the unofficial attitude!)

[Deerhunter]

It probably would have been officially frowned upon in terms of accuracy over distance, if the standard Infantry perspective and tactical doctrine was of formed ranks firing at individual targets at ranges in excess of 100 - 200m, and up to 600m. In terms of firing at short ranges in, or into, confined spaces (along trenches, in fire bays, into deep dugouts, buildings, etc.)it would have been considerably more effective, and more instinctive, hence easier to engage multiple targets and reload quickly, if that makes sense?

Pardon my ignorance, but how did he win his VC? (Note that I am not asking how he got his nickname )

[PhilB]

How he won the VC:-

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114390

It certainly would have been frowned on fordistance work but, if you`re going to teach bayonet fighting, then firing from the hip seems a valuable skill?

[auchonvillerssomme]

I would have thought any un-aimed firing of a weapon was frowned upon even then.

[Gunner Bailey]

He would still have had to raise it a bit to work the bolt. I can't see the point....

John

[MikB]

Todger Jones, a skilled marksman, reckoned that firing his SMLE from the hip was instrumental in enabling him to accomplish his VC winning feat. I`ve never known this style to be taught but it seems to have been a valuable skill for WW1 infantry. What was the official attitude towards it? (Or the unofficial attitude!)

It takes a very long time to train any sort of shooter to fire from the hip with even sufficient accuracy to hit a man at twenty yards or so. WW1 was a numbers game and the few weeks' training given to recruits wouldn't allow for such a time-consuming and low-yield skill to be taught. Also not to be ignored is the hazardous nature of such training in the early stages - you have only kineasthetic feedback as to where your hands are pointing the rifle. Only with the advent of SMGs where multiple strikes can be seen near the target, and 'walked' onto it or him, would such a practice be useful at anything further than powder-burning range. No shooting discipline or range I've ever shot on in 45 years has allowed anything like it.

Regards,

MikB

[Pete1052]

When I've attempted to instinctively point and shoot at man-sized silhouette targets with pistols without aiming I've missed. I suppose if I had lots of ammo and gave it some practice I'd eventually get the hang of it. Even an imperfect sight picture is better than none at all. I'm right-handed but have a dominant left eye, which means my left eye has to be shut to use the sights.

[Thunderbox]

At point-blank range during trench clearing, it was probably quite common - speed of fire would have taken precedence over accuracy. Certainly it would have been an adequate way of suppressing a dug-out by emptying a magazine into the entrance, waiting for someone to get a grenade ready.

Interestingly, there is a very good Pathe clip (I think) filmed during the break-out from Normandy following D-Day. The clip shows a section of Canadian (?) infantry crossing a road T-junction in a village. Obviously there is an enemy to the left down the road somewhere because, as they cross the junction, each man puts down rapid fire from his No4 - from the hip. Clearly the rifle section is doing this as a practised drill. Its an interesting clip, as it also shows the advantage of having an Enfield over - say - a Mauser. Any other bolt action would not be able to generate the weight of fire to achieve good suppression.

[alex falbo]

Definitely agree with the above statement regarding the Lee action (cock on close) vs. the Mauser (cock on open) design. The 60 degree bolt turning angle vs. the typical 90 degree Mauser type also proves a decided advantage when determining the fraction of a second nature of close combat. The SMLE's shorter overall length is also to be considered when wielded in such confines.

[Piorun]

At point-blank range during trench clearing, it was probably quite common - speed of fire would have taken precedence over accuracy. Certainly it would have been an adequate way of suppressing a dug-out by emptying a magazine into the entrance, waiting for someone to get a grenade ready.

Interestingly, there is a very good Pathe clip (I think) filmed during the break-out from Normandy following D-Day. The clip shows a section of Canadian (?) infantry crossing a road T-junction in a village. Obviously there is an enemy to the left down the road somewhere because, as they cross the junction, each man puts down rapid fire from his No4 - from the hip. Clearly the rifle section is doing this as a practised drill. Its an interesting clip, as it also shows the advantage of having an Enfield over - say - a Mauser. Any other bolt action would not be able to generate the weight of fire to achieve good suppression.

I would hazard the opinion that one could achieve faster fire AND aimed fire by using the weapon as it was meant to be used. We would have been peeling potatoes if we'd ever tried firing off the hip. One shot as you cross a parapet maybe, but "rapid fire"? Not a chance. I can't doubt the apparent evidence of the Pathe clip but that section would have been far better off getting one man over then using him and one man back to provide aimed covering fire while the rest ran like 'ell - at staggered intervals. That was gap-crossing training as I recall it. Antony

[regimentalrogue]

Although modern infantry battle techniques see soldiers advancing and moving while holding their weapon at the shoulder, there was an earlier technique known as "marching fire." When executing "marching fire", soldiers in the assault fired from the hip as they moved forward to maintain a steady suppressive fire on the enemy's positions. Although the term seems to appear during or shortly after the Second World War and seems to be the American term for the technique, it was quite likely used by some units during the Great War, even if not described as such in the infantry manuals.

A 1946 US Army document describing the technique to instructors: Employment of marching fire.

[Pete1052]

Patton talked about Marching Fire in his memoirs War As I Knew It. There is much debate in military circles about the usefulness of suppressive fire because it has to be accurate to be effective. Otherwise it's a colossal waste of ammunition. Good small-unit leaders discourage the use of fully automatic fire from individual riflemen -- that's what the machine guns are for.

[4thGordons]

It would appear that the Pederson Device (basically a .30 calibre semiautomatic bolt and magazine that could be inserted into the chamber of the 1903 Springfield (or M1917)thereby converting it into a semi-auto weapon firing a pistol sized cartridge which came just too late to see WWI service, was developed with this sort of idea (walking fire) in mind.

SEE THIS LINK

Chris

[Old Tom]

1940's infantry training for 'the section in attack' was based on the LMG on a flank providing covering fire while the riflemen advanced towards the objective. As the riflemen neared the objective and would have come into the LMGs field of fire the commander would order 'bullets' and the riflemen would fire from the hip. I would not be surprised if that process had originated during the later stages of the Great War.

Old Tom

[Pete1052]

When the Germans developed the Sturmgewehr weapons during World War II the fully-automatic feature was included for use during assaults, hence the modern terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle." Crew-served machine guns are heavy and difficult to move forward quickly during offensive operations; in fact the harnesses the Germans used to carry them led to the "chained to a machine gun" tales and myths. That having been said, the indiscriminate use of fully automatic fire that is only aimed in the general direction of the enemy wastes ammo very quickly, and it does not cause the enemy to take cover unless it hits very close to him.

[PhilB]

A reminder of what Todger Jones wrote:-

There were three men in it, but jumping in at the end of the trench, I had only one at a time to deal with. I got my back to the wall, and they whipped round on me. I always believe in firing from the hip and very quickly number one dropped dead.

Before the next man could recover his senses I had shot him as well, slipped another cartridge in the breech and got the old magazine going on the third at a yard range. The other man fired at me from the entrance to the dug-outs, but I managed to “get there” first every time, which is a great thing in jobs of that kind. In the second traverse there were five chaps standing behind one another. One of them made for me with his bayonet, but I bowled him over like the others by the old trick of shooting from the hip.

I got the five of them.

[Piorun]

Thanks for the enlightenment, Phil. That piglet of yours does uncover some great stuff . It seems that Todger was a smart lad and knew what would work in a tight corner. Good for him! Yours, Antony

[Pete1052]

Marching Fire was a concept bandied about by the AEF as a way of breaking the stalemate of trench warfare during the Great War. The idea was that if an attacking element is firing all of its weapons at the enemy he will keep his head down and be too scared to come up out of his holes and return fire. In practice however it often means tremendous amounts of ammunition are expended with little effect at all. The issuing of selective fire small arms, those having switches that enable automatic or semiautomatic fire, to individual soldiers since World War II has only made the problem worse. The modern term for Marching Fire is Suppressive Fire.

[59165]

You seem to forget the confines of a filled trench.

If I stood in the corridor between the kitchen & back door here, & there were 3 to 5 blokes in front,willing to kill me then,yes.I'd fire a Baker rifle at them & not miss.

The chap in question was probably quite strong but no more so than any other troop of the epoch so,the kick off the Lee wouldn't be a problem,not when he had the 'red mists'.

Why would anyone think that you couldn't shoot a bloke at 2 - 5 yards with a rifle from the 'hip',so to speak?Put up a figure & try it with an air rifle.It'll work.

The hardest shot was at the sniper but,you'll note,that was his 1st target & before the trench episode.

[Pete1052]

Firing at point-blank range and suppressive fire at longer ranges of 50 to 400 yards are different subjects completely. Instinct-shooting is not taught in most military schools because there is only a limited amount of time for training, so the curriculum has to be devoted to the more important stuff that has to be taught first. Some modern Special Forces and Special Operations guys train on point-and-shoot and instinct-firing but they're the exceptions to the rule. In answer to Phil's question, shooting from the hip is not taught in most military schools because there are many other things requiring training that are of much greater importance.

The modern U.S. Army looks very closely at new subjects that are recommended for being taught at Basic Training when a new soldier enters the Army. The length of Basic varies from about six to eight weeks. On one hand there is the need to teach the things a soldier needs to know; on the other hand there are the calculations of the personnel guys, and if you lengthen the duration of the Basic Training course it raises the number of guys and girls who have to be recruited every year to fill the needs of the Army in its line units. Thus non-essential training ideas like shooting from the hip with a rifle tend to fall by the wayside.

[59165]

Pete.It's so easy it must be instinctive.

Look at the wall,find a photo or something & shut your eyes.

Now quickly point at that photo & open your eyes.

I've done it a million times & never been out by more than & foot over 4 yards.I've also tried it recently with an Airsoft M16.

In a trench,in this situation,that would do.

[Pete1052]

Dave, I've tried it with rifles and pistols with live ammo and it doesn't work for me. Maybe it's because I'm right-handed with a dominant left eye. Moments ago I added another paragraph to my previous message to explain where I'm coming from on this subject.

[Pete1052]

Pete.It's so easy it must be instinctive.

Dave, some of the things that seem to work during dry fire don't work very well with real ammo. If you can do it more power to you.

[regimentalrogue]

The modern term for Marching Fire is Suppressive Fire.

Not exactly. Marching fire was suppressive fire, but not all suppressive fire was marching fie.

[Pete1052]

I realize that. During my Field Artillery days in '77-'84 we had "Immediate Supression" fire missions to disrupt the aim of Soviet wire-guided anti-tank missile gunners. My point throughout this thread is that it is better to kill the enemy with aimed fire instead of making him temporarily duck with rounds landing close by.