Enfilade: by a USMC Machine-Gunner, Vietnam 68-69
Ron Sends:
Max, I have tried to illustrate the concept of enfilade fire the way I understand it…and utilizing your concept of a trench line to help explain it. The illustration is attached.
It seems to me that enfilade fire is tied to the idea of trying to have the largest target mass in front of your weapon as possible. It doesn’t matter which way the targets are facing…think trench…the troops may be facing outward and you can shoot along the trench line into their “flank”. But suppose they do a right face and come charging at you. In that case, you are still shooting along the trench line into the flank of a line of troops, they just happen to be facing you instead of looking outward.
Just as long as the bullets can be laid on – and through – as many multiple targets as possible with the least amount of weapon movement, we are in enfilade fire. Only multiple targets can generate an enfilade firing situation. A single target in front of your weapon, even if you are on its flank, does not constitute enfilade firing. Once again, it does not matter which way the multiple targets are facing or moving, only their overall alignment.
See what you think of my illustration and use it if you think it might help.
Ron F
Corporal USMC
Infantry Machine Gunner
Vietnam Aug’68 – Aug’69
Ron is correct: it is not so much what direction the enemy are facing that is important for enfilade, but that you are engaging the enemy formation along their longest axis. In most situations, this does involve moving to a flank, which most often means ‘enfilading’ them from a flank. However, in the illustration above, if engaging an enemy column, you would have the formation in enfilade if you were shooting along the length of the column, even if they were facing you, or moving away. This is a technique that can be used in ambush, if you use a bend in the trail/route in order to shoot along the trail, rather than straight at it from the side. Thus, in an ambush, site your machine guns to the flanks of the ambush, preferably on some sort of bend, in order to shoot along the trail rather than right at it.
That concept is illustrated in this diagram, by chance, from my original enfilade/defilade post:
Where I may be guilty of sowing confusion, is with the anti-armor example. Here we have the added factor of the tank armor, which you want to hit from a flank/rear. Thus, when setting up anti-armor positions, you want them sited in defilade, to hit the enemy with ‘enfilade’ fire – which in this case, you mean hitting the side of the enemy vehicles, even though they may be in column and you may not be aiming at the longest side of the formation, but rather the column from the side. That is a question of priority, and siting in order to achieve defilade.
In the context of the hasty attack planning exercise, if we assume the enemy is on line fighting us from the hill top, once we send an element to the flank, either left or right, and they are now at right angles to our fire support base, they will be able to shoot at the enemy in enfilade. They have got to the flank and are now shooting along the line of the enemy, who are still facing our fire support element. This is also why enfilade is synonymous with getting to a flank. However, a strict definition is to shoot along the longest axis of the enemy formation, whichever way they are facing.
Live Hard.
Die Free
Max
Thanks to Ron for his input, and your clarification. That helps clear things up. Yes, the anti-armor example was confusing.
Thinking of enfilade in terms of this thought process, it helps to illustrate the importance of “L” shaped or area type ambushes. In other words, ambushes that give you the most opportunities to have enfilade fire on the enemy.
True, L shaped ambush gives you that one advantage, but in my opinion it is a crappy technique. Low level stuff. I prefer a linear ambush, with cut off/flank protection groups and a rear protection group. If well sited, the cut off groups can provide this enfilade fire function.
Also, if you think about it, an L ambush is best suited for enemy from one direction, unless you are confident they can walk through the bottom part of the L from behind, or you site that part off the trail on a bend. A linear ambush caters for enemy from both directions, and has a better flank protection function.
Makes sense. So could it be said that a linear ambush is really just an area ambush located on a single path? I can also see the L ambush potentially causing fratricide if arc of fire are not clearly defined and diligently adhered to. Depending on how long the “L” is, the last man on the short end could have a shot on the last man on the long end.
It’s becoming clear the importance of leadership when setting up such a task.
I learned the terms when studding linear warfare. The Napoleonic and American civil wars to be exact.
Enfilade has more to do with the possibility of hits than the direction that either the shooter or target are facing.
So the example of the line of troops is a perfect example. If I engage the men on the right flank of a line and I miss my shots continue to pass along the line and have a very good possibility of hitting some other men along that line. That’s enfilade.
I don’t have to be exactly on the flank to achieve this, I could be at a 45 degree angle to the formation. In that case my odds of achieving a combat result increase even if I miss the guy I am aiming at. I may hit a guy behind him. The theory goes that this is a good position but if I can get further along to the flank of the formation that is better. Again the theory being that along with the increased odds of causing hits I will gain the psychological advantage of firing into the flank.
I have never been on the receiving end of direct fire so I cant say the theory is sound but it seems to be put into practice with the confidence that it is.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c05.htm