# Continuity of MG capabilities; Vickers-C1/5-C6



## Shrek1985 (30 Oct 2013)

I am curious about the continuity of Sustained-fire and indirect MG capability in the CF over time.

Clearly we had it in the Vickers and we have it in the C6, but did the C1 and C5 have a similar capability? If not how did we retain it in the C6?

So few nations utilize this capability in their MGs, so I would really like to know how it was retained across different weapons?


Thanks for your time.


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Oct 2013)

In addition to the MGs you mentioned, the M2 50 Cal was also important. 

You really need to read these articles:

http://regimentalrogue.com/emmagees/emmagees1.htm

http://regimentalrogue.com/emmagees/emmagees2.htm


----------



## Shrek1985 (2 Nov 2013)

That's a really cool article, thanks!

I haven't finished reading it yet, but it seems to be about tactics, if it wasn't more clear; I am more curious about the technical side;

You can do indirect fire with a C6 and with an Vickers gun. How do you do it with a C1/C5 or a M2 .50 cal? I can't see where anything like a C2 sight would hook up and I have never seen either a C5 mounted on the L4 tripod (heard of it, once) , or the M1917 tripod in Canadian use. I have seen the .50 on the M65 mount, but that's an AA mount. Or would that be perfect?


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Nov 2013)

Read those a while back....thanks for the re-post, a good way to spend a sunday morning.

NS


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2013)

Couple of years back the Journal of Canadian Military History had a story about the organization and use of MG battalions in the Brigade structure in WW2.  Had details on their barrage fire techniques etc.

Can't for the life of me recall the article title or author but it might be part of their on line archive of stories and I do not have my old hard copies any more, the price of downsizing from a house to a condo.

http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/archived-articles/

Even if it isn't part of the online archive, lots of excellent information there.


----------



## kkwd (3 Nov 2013)

Here is a link to a publication from the US Army in 1919.  Course In Machine Guns. It was prepared by Capt Walter C. Short, you can find out about him  here. The book shows how indirect firing was conducted through the use of firing tables. 

As for a Canadian connection, I remember over 30 years ago having a copy of firing tables in the tool kit of a C1 GPMG. It was a small booklet with dark red textured cardboard covers that were the fashion many years ago.  I never used it and don't know of anybody that actually did at the time. It must have been a hold over from ages past because that same tool kit had the huge cone flash hider and fittings for the butt and bipod and carrying handle. Maybe you can find a copy of this booklet lying around the unit somewhere.


----------



## SteveB (4 Nov 2013)

I don't recall ever seeing or hearing of any indirect fire method for the .50 caliber.  The T&E mech wouldn't be very well suited to this, as there was no integral means to level the cradle and firing tables were not kept with the tool kit, nor taught during the MG course.  The modern application of indirect mg fire would be a distinct second best to mortars or artillery fire.  The shot density of the beaten zone at range would be pretty thin, and there would have to be a large number of guns firing to attain effect.  I don't recall the technique being employed with the C6 outside of the mg course itself, and even there, much more or the teaching time was dedicated to registering direct targets and obscuration drills.  Admittedly, this is based on recollections that are nearly 15 years old.

Steve


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Nov 2013)

I suspect the technique withered away as the guns became less viable for it. A watercooled .50cal would certainly work and would be useful for damaging equipment and vehicles in an area thought to be safe from direct fire. For infantry form up points, I suspect rifle calibre bullets in greater quantity would be better than smaller quantities of larger bullets.


----------



## Shrek1985 (4 Nov 2013)

Okay, then historically, this is almost unheard of.

Normally when a capability (indirect fire) goes away. it goes away forever.

Plenty of nations using Vickers guns and similar weapons, which later used the FN MAG, never retained indirect fire doctrine. even if they went direct from one to the next.

The only thing I can imagine is that there were enough old timers around who remembered indirect with the Vickers when we adopted the FN MAG that we got close to the whole brit package with the L4 tripod. 

That leads us to the next question; the C2 sight. As I understand it; the C2 series is indeed a proprietary Canadian design, which the brits also use. is this correct?

I know it is a retrofit on the M5 Bipod/baseplate kit for the old m19 mortar. What this item developed to ensure a continuation of indirect fire capability later on?


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect the technique withered away as the guns became less viable for it. A watercooled .50cal would certainly work and would be useful for damaging equipment and vehicles in an area thought to be safe from direct fire. For infantry form up points, I suspect rifle calibre bullets in greater quantity would be better than smaller quantities of larger bullets.



As we continue to degrade the amount and capability of our artillery and mortars (e.g., expensive stuff), the greater the importance of MG/GMG indirect fire capability (e.g., cheaper stuff). 

Which means, of course, we are all doomed.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2013)

Gleaning from multiple sources, I believe that the reason Canadians developed indirect MG fire techniques was because we were not wedded to any preconceived doctrines or military culture prior to the Great War, and most of the senior commanders on the Canadian side at that time stepped into the job from business and industry, so were more attuned to the idea of experimenting with their organizations to get the best effects.

ID with MGs is such a massively useful technique that once you come across it, it is hard to understand why you would NOT adopt it (but maybe that's me). OTOH, using MG's in the indirect role is a dying art, and hardly ever practiced on the range or on EX. When I announce to troops that the GPMG G-6 can be used to engage troops from over 2000m using a map and compass, they generally look at me like I just grew an extra head.

Of course, even suggesting that the SF kit should be with the MG _at all times_ (even during the advance) elicits a similar reaction from most PL Comds and 2I/Cs, even though the firebase becomes vastly more effective once the guns are up on the tripods, the attack can be shot in with fire much closer to the advancing troops than when in the light role, and enemy counter attacks can be met at ranges of up to 1800m if ground and visibility permit.

To me, machine gun courses and training clearly needs to be rethought and gunners made very familier with the ID capabilities of their weapons (this isn't to difficult to do, there are several chapters in the GPMG pam and range tables to allow you to do this). OF course, I would also like to know that gunners are familier with the _DF_ capabilities of their weapons. As a test, next time you go on a MG range or in the SAT, give the command "[range], [target indication] Traversing fire, from Left to Right, GO ON! and see what the gunners do...It probably won't be pretty.


----------



## stealthylizard (10 Nov 2013)

Thucydides, it was still being taught when I did my IPSWQ with 3 VP in 2010, but it's not a skill set that seems to be used often.  Someone fresh off the course would know what to do if given the range command.


----------



## Shrek1985 (12 Nov 2013)

I agree with most of what Thucydides has said.

But; indirect fire was built into the vickers/maxim guns, by use of a sight I am used to calling a "collimating" sight and the barr and stround rangefinder. This is detailed in a book called "with a machinegun to the somme". I believe this was a throwback to the initial deployment of the guns on carriages as artillery.

I also think that with better LCE we could easily port the tripod in the advance; the old "caddy-bag" needs to go and all I have seen are horribly worn out. There are several examples of good tripod carriers for MG teams online, but these replace the back pack, which from a Light Infantry background, I do not like.

As a Coy Weapons Det commander, my modest goal is a field and deploy an SF team to SG 1014. Part of our training plan includes figuring out how to port the SF gear and keep up with the company whatever they may be doing. But I'm digressing now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2013)




----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Nov 2013)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what Thucydides has said.
> 
> But; indirect fire was built into the vickers/maxim guns, by use of a sight I am used to calling a "collimating" sight and the barr and stround rangefinder. This is detailed in a book called "with a machinegun to the somme". I believe this was a throwback to the initial deployment of the guns on carriages as artillery.
> 
> ...



Luckily there's a youtube movie about that, of course:

Employment of Heavy Machine Guns in the Attack - 1944 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

Best of luck to you in deploying the SF kits.

You may have to do some serious sewing: get some sort fo strapping system to tie the tripod to the #2's rucksack and maybe empty out a small pack for the other "bits" of the SF Kit for the #3 to carry. Of course you still need to hump the spare barrels and all the ammunition as well....

Will look up some history sites and see how this problem was attacked back "in the day". Maybe we don't have to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Nov 2013)

How far back do you want to go?

http://www.theliberator.be/handcart.htm

http://www.handcartz.com/


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Best of luck to you in deploying the SF kits.
> 
> You may have to do some serious sewing: get some sort fo strapping system to tie the tripod to the #2's rucksack and maybe empty out a small pack for the other "bits" of the SF Kit for the #3 to carry. Of course you still need to hump the spare barrels and all the ammunition as well....
> 
> Will look up some history sites and see how this problem was attacked back "in the day". Maybe we don't have to reinvent the wheel.



2 PARA team: http://www.onesixth.co.uk/vb4forum/showthread.php?1008-2-para-sf-team

Similar personalities to the real dudes as well  ;D


----------



## Shrek1985 (17 Nov 2013)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> How far back do you want to go?
> 
> http://www.theliberator.be/handcart.htm
> 
> http://www.handcartz.com/



If I had more pull and was guarnteed this job for at least another year, one idea I had, via the Airborne Combat Engineer thinktank sight was a modified golf bag carrier, ironically.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Nov 2013)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Airborne Combat Engineer thinktank


Now there's a string of words, and potential oxymoron, you don't see together often.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

I will admit I have never seen a handcart of the type shown in the website, either in a museum or even in pictures. This is certainly one of those ideas that "makes sense", and if the "B" fleet is being heavily cut, maybe *we* ought to start thinking along these lines.

As for finding clear images of soldiers in marching order carrying machine guns, I have not come across anything yet. Perhaps somethng could be rigged up like a C-9 sling for carrying the weapon strapped to your back, but adapted for a tripod.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2013)

Is this helpful? It's only a model but it appears germane.







Text Link


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

This is the sort of thing I had in mind, but without a picture would have been reduced to handwaving...

Thanks!


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2013)

Germans still have some neat MG stuff -- the US Army - (hardly whom I would call SME's on MG's) have a LW tripod that can work with the M249 of all things...

The MG course USED to do IDF...  Record Targets and all that sort of thing.  A properly working T&E mech with a M2 of C5 could do well -- not as good perhaps as the C6 SF kit - but still a healthy job of recording targets and engaging those targets in the indirect mode.

Sometime after the Korean war - the Canadian Military started looking at shiny objects instead of ensuring the arts that worked so well got retained.

The death of the MG platoons where the #1 killer, then with the removal of the Mortar Pl from the Inf - the C2 sight and any really knowledge of IDF is going going gone.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2013)

Thanks for the Breadcrumbs Kevin.

Thuc:

A Jerry MG3 Tripod complete with integrated straps and padding 






And the Lightweight M192


----------



## KevinB (18 Nov 2013)

With a 240L as well - nice find.

The Germans have been pimping the new Hk121 MG5 in that tripod recently too


----------



## Dissident (18 Nov 2013)

While arguably not enough, at least the theory of indirect fire is being taught on the res Infantry DP2 at 39CBG. I am teaching on a BMQ right now and they had one week end where one of the Mod for the DP2 course was being taught. Drills, C2 sights and tripods all around. 

Since someone made me read the Regimental Rogue papers, the idea of using MMGs and HMGs in the indirect role has tickled my fancy. When I saw the C2 sights and tripods I got a bit excited and talked to the staff of that course. Registering targets and fireplans were part of the TP. They at least appeared to have a good idea of how to do things, but I am just a wannabe.


----------



## KevinB (18 Nov 2013)

They record targets - but its all DF.


----------



## Shrek1985 (18 Nov 2013)

That's really cool stuff guys, but naturally I am limited to the L4 Tripod. In the det we have two guys with jump rucks and I have a Packbord, but I do not want to bring that relic out because it defeats my primary purpose of ruck+SF kit.

Gah; I'm being slow, it was http://www.combatreform.org/mmg.htm


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2013)

Not thinking so much about a packboard as how you could strap the tripod to the ruck instead. Obvious downside of that would be shifting the CoG far to the rear and making it more difficult to stand up, walk etc.

Tying it off to the top of the ruck might have some safety issues (being conked on the back of the head), but probably gives you a bit more mobility. 

In the old days, we used to unford the tripod and put two of the legs over the number 2's shoulders, which was _sort of_ bearable if some padding (in those days rolls of hessian) was wrapped around the legs. There was some debate about putting a cross strap between the legs (in the manner of the straps on you small pack and rucksack that hold the shoulder straps together), since it made getting the thing into action a bit more involved, but on the plus side, kept the tripod stable and secure on your back.

Let us know how your experiments go (and post pics too!)


----------



## Shrek1985 (19 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not thinking so much about a packboard as how you could strap the tripod to the ruck instead. Obvious downside of that would be shifting the CoG far to the rear and making it more difficult to stand up, walk etc.
> 
> Tying it off to the top of the ruck might have some safety issues (being conked on the back of the head), but probably gives you a bit more mobility.
> 
> ...



Those are the same issues I forsee. About all I am certain of at this point is that the caddy-bag is not viable for what we want to do. We tend to hit the bush and stay there, with rucks. Moving by truck and foot. Anything that makes that harder than it has to be is on my no-go list.

We will start with an inspection of all tripods and making sure the c2 sights are green-lit by a tech. I am hoping something obvious will present itself once we have rucks and tripod side by each that is not coming to me now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Nov 2013)

The over the shoulder method can be seen late in this film
http://youtu.be/9_HYmcm9A2o


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2013)

Slight side track: the book 'Excursion to Hell' is an excellent account of 3PARA's MG Platoon in the Falklands War. Lots of pointers in there...

Viz: 

"Phill Brown rated this book as Excellent 
Having served as a rifleman in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment for 12 years, its the lessons learned in this book that proffesional soldiers take to heart. Myself a SFMG team member for two years, had an insight into the demands of the job for real. Later deploying to Bosnia in 1995, i read the book agian and as a consequence we under took specific training in scenarios relating to the story. It was with great relief that our CQMS gave us more than enough ammunition to ensure the balancing of the barrells. We think it might have had something to do with the fact that he too read the book!!!"

http://britains-smallwars.com/swbooks/Excursion.html


----------



## Shrek1985 (21 Nov 2013)

I think I read about one of their battles years ago. Taking a trench system from the Argies and finishing the battle with their captured ammo?

quote author=daftandbarmy link=topic=112678/post-1270659#msg1270659 date=1384902112]
Slight side track: the book 'Excursion to Hell' is an excellent account of 3PARA's MG Platoon in the Falklands War. Lots of pointers in there...

Viz: 

"Phill Brown rated this book as Excellent 
Having served as a rifleman in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment for 12 years, its the lessons learned in this book that proffesional soldiers take to heart. Myself a SFMG team member for two years, had an insight into the demands of the job for real. Later deploying to Bosnia in 1995, i read the book agian and as a consequence we under took specific training in scenarios relating to the story. It was with great relief that our CQMS gave us more than enough ammunition to ensure the balancing of the barrells. We think it might have had something to do with the fact that he too read the book!!!"

http://britains-smallwars.com/swbooks/Excursion.html
[/quote]


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The over the shoulder method can be seen late in this film
> http://youtu.be/9_HYmcm9A2o









From an Aussie site...


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From an Aussie site...



That's how we used to carry the (32lb) tripod over hill and dale, whew...


----------



## NavyShooter (25 Nov 2013)

With my own semi-auto C1 (1919A4) at home...maybe I should get together with a local expert and do some learning about indirect fire....could come in useful next time I go hunting....


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's how we used to carry the (32lb) tripod over hill and dale, whew...



Same, but without the smile.....

Wrap something around the legs for padding and I think you have reached the 80% solution.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Same, but without the smile.....
> 
> Wrap something around the legs for padding and I think you have reached the 80% solution.



We bungeed empty sandbags to the legs for padding, then filled and used them once we'd dug in/ stopped.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2013)

Came across this packboard solution on Olive Drab.  Might want to hire a big fellow for that one.






Although these South Koreans seem to be managing fine with 3 Ammo Cans or a Jerry Can.














By the way - I have fond memories of conducting advance to contact drills through the sandy trails of Borden one joyous, sunny, July afternoon in full kit with the additional pleasure of a 5 Gal (50 lb) Jerrycan of water strapped to my '64 pack frame, under my sleeping bag.  That was back in the days when I had knees.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2013)

Yea I have a 64pattern ruck with the tray attached. keep at the cabin with a full jerrycan of water as part of our fire response kit. We used to have 51pattern packboard when I joined and I have an Olive drab large pack with a divided pouch for carrying 2 ammo cans.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2013)

And for further enlightenment - Canada's seminal contribution to World War 1 logistics 

The Tumpline

From halfway through to 75% through.



> The War Diary for the 7th South Staffs for January 1918 contains the following paragraph in an Operations Order for relieving the 9th Sherwoods.
> 
> Tump Line Squad.
> The Battalion Tump Line Squad (6 men per Coy.) under No. 41019 Pte. MILLER A. “B” Coy. will parade tomorrow at Battn. H.Q. They will remain with Battn. H.Q. whilst the Battn. is in the line and will be in possession of all available Tump Lines. Companies will render a nominal roll of these men to this Office by 9.00 am tomorrow.



Link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2014)

Stylish outfit for the Keen MG carrier

http://www.ima-usa.com/original-british-wwii-machine-gunners-waistcoat.html

and so the Light MG guys don't feel left out (You will never complain about the Tac-Vest again)

http://www.ima-usa.com/british-wwii-bren-vest-skeleton-assault-jerkin.html


----------

