Anyone one ever actually tried their Volley Sights?

[Beerhunter]

My understanding has always been the same as cprher's - namely, the volley sights were for a form of "indirect fire"

I think that you will find that is what cprher said it was not. Which I broadly agree with.

[ArtioZen]

An interesting subject and discussion! I think the key here is range governed by the contemporary rounds vs. the later development of MG practices with long oval beaten zones at increasing ranges due to increased velocity, it seems the target could be Godzilla or a black and yellow Saracen, the sights are "more of a guideline really" per a popular pirate movie line - pi$$ing Godzilla off with a 303 at volley site range could be quite a challenge . - I was just briefly thinking of the projectiles part of all of this.... sub sonic at around the midpoint, losing forward velocity and fighting for stabilization, tail urging forward into the chaos of the downside of the trajectory, tumbling - with the end of "flight" vertically down (32 feet per second squared) - altitude allowing a terminal velocity determined by drag.
The volley scales were developed for the early 303 rounds (Mk 4 through 6?) these giving the various volley sight rage settings with Mk7 being available before the volley sights lost favor to MGs - each version having very different ballistic characteristics. I guess someone could try their volley sights with commercial ammo, HXP or older Mk7 /8 - barrel condition would also need to be considered - smooth bore sewer pipes not being part of the original variation. Tracer would look great as it heads on out, but may burn out or otherwise not be visible during the "down hill section".
With a 100 years of history and knowledge it’s easy to blur the contemporary technologies and multiply the results and possible outcomes - head to Holland where the Vickers were demonstrated in indirect fire and use a similar weight and construction base / tripod unless a mass of rifles can be mustered - I just want to hear that from the fire point!

[Peter Laidler]

I think that we're forgetting that in real life, the beaten zone is just what it says. It is a zone, say on a hillside or hill top in Korea, 2miles away where two hidden MMG's with a good observer can cheaply keep a whole enemy Infantry Battalion closed up, in their bunkers for hours at a time. Nothing outside can be undertaken without the severe risk of MANY casualties. And to be fair, the casualties - and medical Officer now that I think about it and the CCS's dont care too much about the aerodynamics of it all

[Ridolpho]

Volley fire is reputed to be very effective if done correctly. It was not "indirect fire" such as firing over a hill at an unseen target, but rather used for "plunging fire" such as against a trench complex.
Keith

Volley sights were considered for the ill fated reduced caliber "Enfield Martini" and documents of the testing show it to be a statistical game- an order is given to the riflemen to set their volley sights at a particular range (guesstimated by an officer) and in a particular direction at a target possibly invisible over a hill. A large cloud of bullets lands in the general target area with some probability of a few hits. The small confines of a trench (froint to rear) would represent an incredibly small target at the ranges where the trajectory could be considered "plunging fire". In most of the references I've seen regarding volley fire the intended target is a massed "formation" of infantry or cavalry that presents a large, deep target.

Ridolpho

[Colonel Enfield]

I think that you will find that is what cprher said it was not. Which I broadly agree with.

Sorry, I probably should have clarified - I said a form of indirect fire, which I would respectfully suggest includes "plunging fire" - ie, the shooter is firing at a target they cannot directly (or properly) see, but knows is roughly where the bullets are likely to go when they come down.

My point - and I believe I am echoing cprher's observation - is that the Volley Sights were not intended to be "really extra long range marksman sights", but rather a way to facilitate a company of troops putting rather a lot of .303 bullets in a particular area that was out of aimed fire range.

[Seaspriter]

Volley Sights were not intended to be "really extra long range marksman sights", but rather a way to facilitate a company of troops putting rather a lot of .303 bullets in a particular area that was out of aimed fire range.

If we consider the origins of thinking about "volley fire," we go back to the Greeks and Romans, who used volley fire with arrows, laying down a barrage at long distance against a large amassed group of enemy soldiers. The principle was adopted by the British army and used for centuries once muskets replaced the bow and arrow. But musket balls have virtually no accuracy beyond 100 yards, even in the hands of a great marksman. Thus, at that range of 100+ yards, volley fire was used as standard procedure against amassed troops by large armies. The command was not "take aim," but "level fire" (IOW, lay down a barrage).

With the emergence of accurate rifles and magazine-fed cartridges in the late 1800s, the range of volley fire could be extended from a couple of hundred yards to a couple of thousand yards. But at the same time the machine gun came into use, which is a far more effective/efficient/lower-risk means of accomplishing the same objective; making volley fire (thus volley sights) somewhat obsolete.

At the beginning of WWI, the Germans used amassed troop charges, and the British, with their Lee Enfield volley sights and rapid fire bolt actions, mowed down the attacking troops, leading the Germans to presume the British must have had been using machine guns! Soon after the German army stopped this type of "charge of the light infantry" and dug into trenches.

I strongly suspect the British army tried to use their already-mounted Lee Enfield volley sights for "plunging fire" and "back of hill" targets, but soon found (for all the reasons addressed above) that putting a plunging round into a trench at 2600 yards is futile -- something a mortar, not a rifle, was designed to do with far more accuracy. Hence the volley sights were abandoned as unnecessary/ineffective by the middle of the war.

This raises the question: "Why were the volley sights briefly reinstated after the war?" Perhaps the answer is because the 1920-1930 mentality was that WWI was the "war to end all wars." Thus the stock of guns would be only used for regional conflicts where volley fire might be a useful technique for suppression. We all know that WWI was not the end of human folly, as Adolf, Benito, and ToJo were soon to demonstrate -- the advantage of hindsight.

---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

(BTW, my Eddystone P-14 is missing its Dial Sight Pointer and retaining screw -- anyone have a spare to trade?)

[Colonel Enfield]

This raises the question: "Why were the volley sights briefly reinstated after the war?" Perhaps the answer is because the 1920-1930 mentality was that WWI was the "war to end all wars." Thus the stock of guns would be only used for regional conflicts where volley fire might be a useful technique for suppression. We all know that WWI was not the end of human folly, as Adolf, Benito, and ToJo were soon to demonstrate -- the advantage of hindsight.

I've always thought it was because the Mk III* pattern was intended as a wartime expediency, to allow the fastest possible production of the most rifles for the lowest cost. With the war over, it was back to the "standard" pattern, complete with the magazine cut-off and volley sights.

I suspect this may have been related to the same mindset Webley & Scott were using when they stamped "WAR FINISH" on their Mk IV revolvers during WWII - basically saying "Look, there's a war on so this isn't finished to our usual high standards", with the implication being as soon as the unpleasantess was sorted out they'd be right back to the usual standards (which, to their credit, they were).

[jrhead75]

"Why were the volley sights briefly reinstated after the war?"

They weren't. LoC 24774, dated 30 Jun 1920 omits them from MkIII manufacture altogether. From Jan 1916 until then, they had been optional.