"WWI Combat Ranges" Topic

well… trying again after strange technical difficulty.

What would be some ballpark effective ranges for actual engagement by HMGs, MGs, and rifles?

As in – assuming adequate ammo – at what range would they be permitted to open fire?

A quick look at weapons on line seems to indicate about 1000 yards for HMGs and 500 yards for rifles. Certainly that's not a detailed examination.

I also assume that there will be some differences between 1914 and 1918, for example.

Add in 2000m for direct fire guns

METT-T will make a lot of difference. Are we on the East Front or Belgium?

LOS will be a critical factor too

Yes, I agree …

LMG's ~400 to 450 yards maximum effective range.

B

Roger that, Boss! I'm assuming a defender's opening fire in relatively flat good going and decent visibility – IOW not wasting ammo but some legit targets. What I'm hearing is the below is not unreasonable:
3000m for DF guns
1000m for HMGs
500m for LMGs / Bolt Action Rifles

I'd suggest that if I have a nice hill and great visibility, then perhaps 4,000m for the DF guns is not unreasonable.

From "Infantry in Battle" 1939 which referenced engagements during the 1st WW. 28th Div. in Meuse- Argonne operations reserve MG companies engaged enemy positions 2- 3000 m. distant. Indirect laying of the guns was necessary (not direct fire) and 60,000 additional rounds of ammunition were issued to each company: obviously massive expenditure of ammunition was required for such massive barrages. This may not be typical, but does illustrate what was possible.

great point – The british still trained for that in WWII, but I don't believe they used it much [altho it is an option in Flames of War, the most realistic WWII miniatures game – evah!]. It functioned as a light impact artillery template, basically.

Hate to have to haul 60,000 rounds of ammo around…

The british still trained for that in WWII, but I don't believe they used it much

They actually used it quite extensively. Unit histories frequently mention the MG platoons employing indirect fire on their own or added to a pepperpot barrage.

As to the original question, it's tough to generalize even with the ideal ground condtions, visibility and ammo you stipulate. "At what range would they be permitted to open fire?" is the rub. Doctrine, training, and weapons come into play.

Take, for example, British and French troops of 1914-15. British Regular and TF soldiers have trained extensively for engaging at these ranges and their SMLE, its sights, and the Mk VII ammo are built for it. The "mad minute" gets the press, but the 1909/1912 Musketry Regulations are definitely about knocking the enemy down at a distance. The French, on the other hand, are less sanguine. The open field of fire is nice, but their Lebels are not built for distance engagements. Even if they had good sights (which they don't) their best ammunition (not always on hand) is notoriously inaccurate beyond 300 yards. So, regardless of the quality and training of his men, no French officer is likely to engage at 300-500 yards, whereas a British officer would consider it an opportunity.

The limit for direct lay HE fire is about 2000m, even with modern range finders and ballistic computers.

Second line MG positions in well sited trench lines also commonly opened direct fire at 2000m, although once you move to elastic defence in depth sited on reverse slopes etc that changes.

Regulars with magazine rifles could lay down effective fire at 1000m. Poorly trained conscripts couldn't.

As noted above, maximum effective range for bipod mount LMGs is about 600m.

To a large extent it depends on line of sight and also doctrine about when to open fire. Not much point blazing away at 1000m if all that happens is you reveal your positions and the enemy drop a massive artillery barrage on you.

So the initial guess is good enough. 1000m for tripod MG, 600m for bipod, and maybe 600m for rifles (vs mass targets in the open) but realistically, more like 300m, which funnily enough is the range the battle sights on the SLR were set to.

Generally firefights take place at about < 250m. Has more to do with terrain and a soldier's ability to not only see the target but to hit it, etc., etc.

Based on my training and experience, on the M16 Qual rg., with the standard open sight. The 250m and 300m targets are tiny …

A good exercise when it comes to range to target. With the naked eye, have someone stand about 100ms away. Then 200, 300, 450-500, and maybe even up to 1000(!). You can see how difficult it may be to see a human sized target let alone hit it as the range increases … obviously. Add in terrain/LOS … and it becomes more "challenging" to see a target. Then try to engage it.

Add to what has been said the fear, heat, cold, lack of sleep, and all the dirty misery of combat and even expert shots will regularly have to expend loads of ammo for every hit.
War is hell!

I agree with your points about the difficulty of seeing an individual target beyond even a few hundred metres. In in the lead up to and during WW1, the process of acquiring and engaging a single target with repeated aimed fire at various ranges was known as marksmanship.

A British marksman badge example:

A French example:

And a German example:

There was a second discipline that was practised at the section, platoon, and company levels. It was known as musketry in the British army but the principles were the same in the German and French armies for example. A unit of men would be trained to engage an enemy unit, rather than individual enemy soldiers. The processes of fire control and fire discipline were practised as drills, often using targets representing groups of enemy, which are easier to spot than single individuals. The targets would be towed or raised and lowered from different locations on the range. The goal was to create a beaten zone of rifle bullets that covered the enemy unit location.

The beaten zones became broader and less densely covered with bullets as the distance increased to the target. Nevertheless, it was expected that a beaten zone could be created out to 1000 m. If a unit had time to set up a killing zone during an actual battle then markers would be laid at 100 intervals over the zone so that distances to enemy units could be estimated quickly. Range tables would be drawn up in advance if possible too – distance and direction to such-and-such a building or wood, etc. Range-finder instruments were used to estimate distances as well during an action. NCOs and soldiers were taught how to estimate distances too. The key instructions during musketry were:
1. Direction of enemy unit to be engaged
2. Distance to target, which would be adjusted according to the observed impacts of the bullets
3. Rate of fire
4. When to commence and cease firing

Smokeless powder and field craft enabled fire to be opened at 1000 m without necessarily betraying the location of the shooters. The goal at this sort of range was to cause the enemy unit to deploy earlier than it would have wanted. The tactic was useful during rear guard actions for example. More generally, fire would be opened at around 3-400 m, depending on lines of sight. Rifle sights were often pre-set to this sort of distance but NCOs would call out the range as a routine during drills so that infantry became used to adjusting the distance on the sights during an engagement.

This is a photo of a 1915 British Barr & Stroud No. 2 Mk III infantry range-finder:

Robert

To add to the above, British regs expected a soldier in a rifle company to accurately estimate distances out to 800 yards, being accurate to within 100 yards at the extreme and with a diminishing margin of error at closer range.

Also, a somewhat contentious subject, but they did go to war with volley sights for ranges of 1200-2000 yards.

What Robert said, beyond a couple of hundred metres rifle fire is just area fire, same as MGs and mortars. Ordering five rounds rapid from a rifle group lays down the same weight of fire as one Bren magazine.

Terrain impacts it heavily. Given the nominal range of the rifles, trench systems (even non the Western Front) could be surprisingly shallow, in part because the successive lines of parapet and parados could seriously restrict visibility for a man standing below ground level. In some cases, where dominant terrain offered observation, I would expect longer range firing tone feasible, but I bet much of the time, 3-400 meters was the maximum a soldier could see in Western Europe, let alone shoot.0

Legionairus, monk2002uk, & nine pound round +1 each ! 🥇🥈🥉🎖😎

a soldier in a rifle company to accurately estimate distances out to 800 yards, being accurate to within 100 yards at the extreme and with a diminishing margin of error at closer range.

Something to also consider at longer ranges in WWI or even WWII in some cases. Those targets may be a formation of massed Infantry or even Horse Cav, etc. We know how important units being spread out/dispersed is.

As well as massed long ranged firing in the direction of a target, may actually be more "suppressive" than actually hitting a soldier or horse. Of course, you throw enough rounds down range you will probably hit something … maybe ?

Thanks for the excellent discussion.

What I'm hearing is that:
2000m for DF guns [longer from a hill?]
1000m for HMGs
500m for LMGs / Bolt Action Rifles
is about right.

However, fire past about 100-200m would be Suppressing Fire, and only hitting unfortunates due to the amount of lead in the air, not due to aiming. At closer range, DF becomes more lethal in actual casualties.

So probably the game mechanic would be to have mostly suppression / pinning and morale issues from long range fire, and actual casualties increase during the last few hundred meters.

There should perhaps be a bonus / penalty for superior shooting and/or superior defensive preparations, such as placing range markers, creating killing grounds, etc.

I think a good indicator of the effective range of direct fire weapons in WWI on static fronts is the depth of the trench system, which is designed to keep soldiers holding and approaching the line safe primarily from direct fire, which was a continuous, rather than an intermittent threat. In areas where the system was overlooked by dominating terrain, it would have to be deeper, but where the line itself was on a hilltop, there could be surprisingly little behind it (this is an extreme example, but think of The Cup at Gallipoli, an essentially open ravine behind multiple lines of Turkish entrenchments at Lone Pine, which some Australians reached in almost the first rush on August 6).

Artillery could and did range the areas to the rear of the communications trenches, but it was accepted as a hazard. Even so, I think it's much more a matter of terrain than of specific types of weapons.

MG fire could destroy an infantry company out to 2000 yards.

Infantry fire was destructive out to at least 500 yards.

Robert

Terrain permitting.

Yes as I and others said, much is terrain and even at times weather dependent.

And again based on my experience in the US Army Infantry, a human sized target about 300ms away is tiny …

In general, defenders tried to create a situation in which terrain permitted.

Robert

Definitely, but in many cases you don't have the terrain of your choosing. In training as a Plt Ldr or Co Cdr, many times our positions were not in terrain of our liking. But as always we made it work as well as we could.

E.g. Our FOB, Warrior Base on the ROK DMZ. When the truce came about in '53. In that area, the Imjin River was behind US/UN positions. And it was that way when I was there, with a Mech Bn for 22 months, '84-'85.

The 2ID HQ had a CE Bridging Co. placed in our sector. Just incase we had to withdraw and the two near by bridges were demo'd by the ROKs, etc. In actuality we'd need those two bridges plus the CE's bridge to make a successful withdrawal. Or many of our vehicles would have to be "spiked", booby trapped, etc. And we'd be swimming South across the Imjin. The M113s could swim but not the rolling stock & heavier AFVs, etc. Many of us would have to swim across with nothing but our BDUs. 🏊‍♂️🏊‍♂️🏊‍♂️🏊‍♂️ So … yes, certainly not the terrain of our choosing …

As I was taught and often mention. Again everything in dependent on terrain & situation.

Also to quote Sabre 6:

METT-T will make a lot of difference

I was taught the same, as well …

It is worth considering that if one party enjoys possession of "favorable terrain", his opponent likely does not.

Passchendaele, for example.

B

That may be true in a number of situations.

I think the proper assumption for a wargame is that on average, military operations being a combination of both sides trying to create as many advantages as possible, there will be a sort of medium point, where the attacker at least thinks he's got a chance, and the defender thinks he's got a chance. If not, then no attack, or the defender withdraws in the night or something.

So on average, terrain will be neutral or only moderately favor one side and the other thinks that they can counter that advantage somehow [perhaps with heavy IF?].

So my company level WWII rules [basic unit is a platoon] make the assumption that the table only shows terrain of military importance, while loads of "micro-terrain" that men can hide in is scattered in the "open spaces" of the table. Where that is not the case, e.g. an airfield or just very very flat terrain, then there is a bonus for an attacker firing on a target in that terrain.

And micro-terrain loses a lot of its value when you are firing from a higher elevation.

My assumption is that the PLs and the Company Commander are reasonably competent and can use terrain on the attack and the defense.

If this wasn't the case, then all HMG bullets would find a kill, and the war would be over by Christmas as no one would be left to fight it.

So how far can weapons typically fire…it's a combination of permission / ammo / Line of Sight / cover and concealment / giving away your position.

But if we're playing a wargame then something should be in the works from which to make a fight of, whether it's a probe or an all out assault.

My assumption is that the PLs and the Company Commander are reasonably competent and can use terrain on the attack and the defense.

I would hope so …