long lee volley sights

[sawdoc34]

Quick question for you chaps-

Should the volley sights still be present on a 1903 LSA MLE mk1* (has the plate but no dial or rear peep)?

Or was they officially taken off when it was DPd or were they removed due to LOC?

Cheers,

Aleck

[shippingsteel]

Should the volley sights still be present on a 1903 LSA MLE mk1* (has the plate but no dial or rear peep)?

The MLE Mk.I* would have originally had the volley sights in place - had the big Skennerton book out so did a quick check.!

Cheers, S>S

[Matthew]

You can get some replacements here:

http://www.efdrifles.com/

[sawdoc34]

Thanks for that S/S , now I just need to figure out if they were officialy removed & if so when/why?

[TonyE]

I don't think there is an LoC ordering the removal of the sights, but if it was made into a DP after 1916 then it is likely that they were removed then. If it was DP'd before then there would have been no reason to remove the sights.

Has the rifle been converted to a CLLE? Again, if that was done after the introduction of the III* (unlikely I know) that is another possible time for removal.

Regards

TonyE

[Muerrisch]

I don't think there is an LoC ordering the removal of the sights, but if it was made into a DP after 1916 then it is likely that they were removed then. If it was DP'd before then there would have been no reason to remove the sights.

Has the rifle been converted to a CLLE? Again, if that was done after the introduction of the III* (unlikely I know) that is another possible time for removal.

Regards

TonyE

Slight bit of thread drift, but these sights and their use fascinate me. Are there any documented instances of their use in combat [or indeed in practices}?. I imagine fire control must have been a nightmare, in addition to range estimation and the actual use of the sight.

[4thGordons]

Slight bit of thread drift, but these sights and their use fascinate me. Are there any documented instances of their use in combat [or indeed in practices}?. I imagine fire control must have been a nightmare, in addition to range estimation and the actual use of the sight.

SHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh

Don't start that one again! Huge and sometimes slightly heated previous threads.... like this one

Chris

[truthergw]

Slight bit of thread drift, but these sights and their use fascinate me. Are there any documented instances of their use in combat [or indeed in practices}?. I imagine fire control must have been a nightmare, in addition to range estimation and the actual use of the sight.

The other day I was reading " Sniping in France" and there is a reference near the beginning to volley firing, its purpose and how it was controlled. Quite interesting as the reference is not critical but simply setting out that volley fire was in some sense, the opposite of sniping.

[sawdoc34]

I don't think there is an LoC ordering the removal of the sights, but if it was made into a DP after 1916 then it is likely that they were removed then. If it was DP'd before then there would have been no reason to remove the sights.

Has the rifle been converted to a CLLE? Again, if that was done after the introduction of the III* (unlikely I know) that is another possible time for removal.

Regards

TonyE

TonyE,

No mate, no charger bridge or any sign of 1 being fitted.

Are there any markings that I should check for to indicate the date it was DPd?

Cheers,

Aleck

[Muerrisch]

Thanks 4th Gordons for the link: I take the liberty of appending a contribution from that thread, follwed by a summary as I see it:

Posted 22 October 2010 - 05:00 PM

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

I conclude: not used or indeed suitable for use in Western Front conditions, but was considered of use on NW Frontier.

John Masters "Bugles and a Tiger" has his 2 Gurkha Vickers MGs to fire at tribesmen range 1000 yards, and orders sights 950 and 1050, as I recall. Says effect devastating. I venture to suggest that a 100 rifle company would have performed similarly, volley sights or not.

[TonyE]

Thank you, Grumpy.

I was going to post that but you have saved me the trouble of looking out my old post.

Cheers

TonyE

[MikB]

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.

...and I would still point out that, at an angle of descent of about 15 degrees, a 10-yard rangefinding error would be sufficient to turn a miss high into a miss low. The density of enemy on the target area would normally be lower than 50%, so only if all rounds were perfectly aimed from rifles in perfect calibration could the condition of "as much chance of a hit as a miss" even be remotely approached.

The prospects of perfect calibration of volley sights, attached to the wooden parts of a rifle treated robustly and carried through widely varying conditions of temperature and humidity would seem very faint.

There've been more recent conflicts offering opportunity for long-range engagements by lightly-armed troops, but so far as I'm aware nobody has ever attempted to revive the long-range volley sight.

I don't know whether the contemporary writers praising them were mistaken in attributing enemy dispersal to the awareness of bullets arriving amongst them, were saying what they thought their culture required of them - or in occasional random cases may even have been correct. But it seems to me volley sights represented a technology developed and hyped well beyond its practical value. We should all be familiar enough with that condition today.

Well, that's my 2p's worth - couldn't let it all go the other way without comment.

Regards,

MikB

[Muerrisch]

...and I would still point out that, at an angle of descent of about 15 degrees, a 10-yard rangefinding error would be sufficient to turn a miss high into a miss low. The density of enemy on the target area would normally be lower than 50%, so only if all rounds were perfectly aimed from rifles in perfect calibration could the condition of "as much chance of a hit as a miss" even be remotely approached.

The prospects of perfect calibration of volley sights, attached to the wooden parts of a rifle treated robustly and carried through widely varying conditions of temperature and humidity would seem very faint.

There've been more recent conflicts offering opportunity for long-range engagements by lightly-armed troops, but so far as I'm aware nobody has ever attempted to revive the long-range volley sight.

I don't know whether the contemporary writers praising them were mistaken in attributing enemy dispersal to the awareness of bullets arriving amongst them, were saying what they thought their culture required of them - or in occasional random cases may even have been correct. But it seems to me volley sights represented a technology developed and hyped well beyond its practical value. We should all be familiar enough with that condition today.

Well, that's my 2p's worth - couldn't let it all go the other way without comment.

Regards,

MikB

In the John Masters 2xVickers @1000 yards case he attributed much of the slaughter to fragments of rock, which you ignore. You also ignore the fact that a miss high or low could well have hit the man behind/ in front or his donkey.

And I do think there is an element of special pleading in suggesting that the "satisfied customer" comments were driven by the culture: since when did soldiers pass up an opportunity to grumble about their kit? Equally telling are the dissatisfied, also quoted, thus giving a balanced account.

For the non-mathematical among us, would you care to show your workings please? Assumptions to include range, height of target [and a separate one for horsed enemy], bullet drop, etc etc.

[Story]

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.

That's interesting - as part of some research on the Ishapore rifles, I've got laying around somewheres copies of articles from the United Defence Services Journal on the wartime degradation of marksmanship skills amongst Indian units (particularly in Africa) as they were relying on machineguns for their base of fire, and that when they went back to seeing action on the Northwest Frontier they basically had to relearning their long range shooting skills.

[Muerrisch]

Man Musk 1909 recommends using combined sights for long range, as John Masters did with his MGs.

Angle of descent 10 degrees from horizontal at 2000 yards

A bullet entering this 2000 yard zone at 5 feet in the air will still be hitting lower limbs in line as far as 28 feet back, never mind richochets

[MikB]

For the non-mathematical among us, would you care to show your workings please? Assumptions to include range, height of target [and a separate one for horsed enemy], bullet drop, etc etc.

The simplest way to look at it is to measure the angle of elevation with volley sights set at 2700 yards. I got 11 1/2 degrees working off a photo - that may not be especially precise but it's adequate to demonstrate the point.

That would mean - because the trajectory isn't symmettrical and the round's falling faster than it rises, the angle of descent is going to be about 15 degrees at least - given the big velocity loss over the distance it could be a good deal steeper even than that.

That gives us a right-angle triangle with a hypotenuse at 15 degrees from horizontal, a base say 360 inches long if we want to know the drop over 10 yards,and a perpendicular that represents the drop over the base distance. Pre-'O'-level trig gives us Opposite = Adjacent x tan 15, or drop = 360 x 0.268 - that's over 96" or 8 feet.

Of course, the bullet's path is actually a curve, so the straight hypotenuse is an approximation, but it won't be more than an inch or two out. Ten yards horizontal travel equals a drop of about 8 feet.

So the soldier firing at the centre of a cavalryman his NCO says to be 2700 yards away, aiming perfectly with his perfectly calibrated volley sight (pinned to the wooden fore-end back in England months ago, remember!) will risk missing over his head if he's actually 2695 yards away, and into the dirt beneath his horse's hooves if he's actually 2705 yards away. As I said earlier, I suspect the angle of descent would be greater than 15 degrees, which would make it correspondingly worse.

All other variables of shooter capability, ammunition consistency and accuracy of sight calibration - none of them insignificant at 2700 yards - have to be added to this.

Because the bullet is well subsonic at such distances, the enemy won't get the scary 'crack' as a bullet passes close to him. It doesn't have anything like the big reserve of energy it has at a few hundred yards, so rock splinters as secondary projectiles are very unlikely rewards for misses. It's difficult to spot strikes at 1000 yards with a good 20x spotting scope on horizontal ground, never mind with a pair of pre-1900 Galilean glasses with no more than about 3x magnification, so at 2700 it would take exceptional conditions and observational capability to even know which way you were missing.

Enemy probably doesn't even realise he's under fire.

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

....So the soldier firing at the centre of a cavalryman his NCO says to be 2700 yards away, aiming perfectly with his perfectly calibrated volley sight (pinned to the wooden fore-end back in England months ago, remember!) will risk missing over his head if he's actually 2695 yards away, and into the dirt beneath his horse's hooves if he's actually 2705 yards away. As I said earlier, I suspect the angle of descent would be greater than 15 degrees, which would make it correspondingly worse.

All other variables of shooter capability, ammunition consistency and accuracy of sight calibration - none of them insignificant at 2700 yards - have to be added to this.

Regards,

MikB

I am quite happy with the maths Mik, but the above is entirely irrelevant for an area weapon, and that is what a long range volley is.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, even a company firing a ten round volley will put over 2,000 rounds in the air. It does not matter, and in fact may be desirable, that the rounds fall at distances between say 2,650 and 2,750 yards to use your example. Nobody is firing at an individual target so bullets can't be said to "miss" a particular enemy's head. Similarly, a mass of several thousand enemy will not all be at exactly 2,700 yards, they will be spread ove a fairly large area.

Regards

TonyE

[Muerrisch]

"The simplest way to look at it is to measure the angle of elevation with volley sights set at 2700 yards. I got 11 1/2 degrees working off a photo - that may not be especially precise but it's adequate to demonstrate the point.

That would mean - because the trajectory isn't symmettrical and the round's falling faster than it rises, the angle of descent is going to be about 15 degrees at least - given the big velocity loss over the distance it could be a good deal steeper even than that".

Rather than speculate, this is from the good book previously quoted:

2000 yds 10 deg

2200 13

2500 19

2800 26

long range fire was not recommended for use by fewer than two platoons.

The beaten zone, 75% of shots fired, was said to be 22 feet wide by 100 yards deep at 1500 yards [nothing beyond quoted]. That is 75% of say 10 rounds fired by 50 men, or 375 rounds in about a minute ...... I think I might notice that going on ........

[MikB]

The beaten zone, 75% of shots fired, was said to be 22 feet wide by 100 yards deep at 1500 yards [nothing beyond quoted]. That is 75% of say 10 rounds fired by 50 men, or 375 rounds in about a minute ...... I think I might notice that going on ........

Well,

(a.) That's at 1500 yards, not 2700, and you wouldn't need volley sights for that on a WW1 SMLE, and

(b.) that would be the beaten zone for one rifle fired consistently. Anybody's guess how big 50 beaten zones would be.

I'm quite happy to accept the value of mass shooting up to 1500 yards or so, but I think it would decline beyond 2000 to the point of uselessness, except in barrage fire from machine guns to search reverse slopes in an enemy's assembly area.

We're probably not going to agree, so further dispute may be pointless. We can agree that volley sights have been dropped, it's the reason that's contentious.

Regards,

MikB

[Muerrisch]

Well,

(a.) That's at 1500 yards, not 2700, and you wouldn't need volley sights for that on a WW1 SMLE, and

(b.) that would be the beaten zone for one rifle fired consistently. Anybody's guess how big 50 beaten zones would be.

I'm quite happy to accept the value of mass shooting up to 1500 yards or so, but I think it would decline beyond 2000 to the point of uselessness, except in barrage fire from machine guns to search reverse slopes in an enemy's assembly area.

We're probably not going to agree, so further dispute may be pointless. We can agree that volley sights have been dropped, it's the reason that's contentious.

Regards,

MikB

No, we are not going to agree. Your b] is incorrect.