Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic
I think I see where that particular confusion has come from - the idea that you would need to elevate the weapon higher for indirect fire than you would if you were engaging a target at closer ranges? I think this line of thinking has come about because some of the weapons that are listed in the rules as having indirect fire, typically use a lobbing or plunging trajectory to facilitate indirect fire but it pays to remember that any weapon is capable of indirect fire. Direct and indirect fire are not specifically a function of the range of the weapon nor it's most commonly used trajectory.
|
Indeed: During the Franco-Prussian war, the french, who was far better armed riflewise than the Prussian Army was at a strong disadvantage because they was trained not to fire directly at the Prussians: Instead, they would form up in mass, and whole companies would fire at once at a designated beaten zone, with the thinking that plunging fire from masses rifles was far more effective than shooting right at the Prussians. Since the Prussian Army was soon taking its holiday in Paris, its safe to assume that wasn't such a hot idea. The British on the other hand, took this idea, and used a different tool: The Vickers. Take a platoon of four HMG's, and aim them all in semi-indirect fire at a selected beaten zone, you get a good effect on the the target, as long as all you are trying to do is prevent someone from moving through that zone. It was used to good effect in the first and second world wars, though less so in the second due to keeping the HMG's supplied with the immense amount of ammo such tactics consumed.